Qhtizt  in  tbe 


SfqupallieJi  bg  Ijtm  tn 

tl|0  iCtbrarg  of 

Prinrrton  Stj^nlngtral  S^^mtnarQ 

BV  828  .F6 

Fox,  Norman,  1836-1907. 

Christ  in  the  daily  meal 


Cbdst  in  tbe 

OR 

THE  ORDINANCE  OF 
THE  BREAKING  OF  BREAD 


NORMAN  FOX,  D.  D., 

LATE    PROFESSOR    OF    CHURCH  HISTORY    IN   SCHOOL    OF   THEOLOGY, 
WILLIAM   JEWELL  COLLEGE  ;   MISSOURI 


*'  They  did  eat  their  meat  with  gladness  " 


NEW  YORK 
FORDS,  HOWARD  &  HULBERT 

LONDON  :  JAMES  CLARKE  &  CO. 
1898. 


Copyright  in  1898, 
By  NORMAN  FOX. 


To  my  friends,  the  Editors  <7/*The  Indepen- 
dent and  the  me7?ibers  of  The  Baptist  Minis- 

TERS'CONFERENCE  OF  NeW  YoRK  AND  ViCINITY, 

is  dedicated  this  expansion  of  a  brief  paper  which, 
read  before  the  latter  and  published  by  the 
former  [Afarch,  i8g^),  created  some  discussion. 

MoRRisTowN,  New  Jersey, 
February,  1898. 


CONTENTS. 


FACe 


I.   The  Questio7i    ....  7 

//.   Took — Blest — Bj-ake — Gave          .  10 

III.   The  Old  and  the  New       .         .  13 

IV.  ''Hoc  Est''          .         .         ,         ,  23 

V.  Symbolism         ....  30 

VI.  ''  Our  Daily  Bread''  as  the 

Body  of  Christ      .         ,         .  40 

VII.  May  One  Disciple  "  Do  This  "  ?  S4 
VIII.    What  Did  Christ  Mean  by 

"  As  Oft  As"  ?         .         .  61 

IX.  Apostolic  Precedent       ,         ,         ,  ^4 

X.    Union  with  Christ             .         .  S2 

XI.  lore  to  the  Brethren      .         .         .  <Pp 

XII  Historical         ....  104 

XIII.  Practical     .....  7/5 

XIV.    The  Church  Supper          ,         .  J22 

XIV.  In  Conclusion       ....  13^ 


CHRIST    IN   THE   DAILY   MEAL 


The  Question, 

SAID  Jesus"  to  his  disciples, — ^'This  do 
in  remembrance  of  Me."  But  how 
often  was  their  eating  of  bread  and  drink- 
ing of  wine  to  be  done  with  thought  of 
Him  ?  Once  a  month, — once  a  week, — 
occasionally, — now  and  then  ?  Was  not 
his  command  this, — that  each  time  and 
whenever  they  ate  bread  to  sustain  their 
mortal  bodies  they  should  think  of  him, 
the  food  of  their  souls;  and  that  when- 
ever they  took  in  their  hands  their  cup 
of  the  blood  of  the  grape,  the  drink  of 
their  daily  meals,  they  should  be  thereby 
reminded  of  his  blood  shed  for  them  ? 

Let  us  review  those  paragraphs  of  the 
New  Testament  which  refer  to  the  break- 


8  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

ing  of  bread.  They  may  be  catalogued 
as  follows : — 

The  feeding  of  the  five  thousand — Mat- 
thew xiv.  19 ;  Mark  vi.  41  ;  Luke  ix.  16  ; 
John  vi.  II;  and  of  the  four  thousand 
—Matthew  xv.  36  ;  Mark  viii.  6. 

The  Saviour's  last  Passover — Matthew 
xxvi.  26;  Mark  xiv.  22;  Luke  xxii.  19; 
I  Corinthians  xi.  23. 

The  meal  at  Emmaus — Luke  xxiv.  30. 

The  breaking  of  bread  at  Jerusalem  — 
Acts  ii.  42,  46. 

The  breaking  of  bread  at  Troas — Acts 
XX.  7,  II. 

Paul's  repast  in  the  shipwreck — Acts 
xxvii.  35. 

Communion  with  Christ  and  commun- 
ion with  demons —  I  Corinthians  X.  14. 

The  church  meals  at  Corinth — i  Cor- 
inthians xi.  17. 

Compare  also : — 

The  Bread  of  Life — John  vi.  31. 

The  Agapae  or  Love-Feasts — 2  Peter 
ii.  13  ;  Jude  12. 

These  should   be  read  in  the  Revised 


The  Question.  9 

Version  ;  also  in  the  very  excellent  trans- 
lation issued  by  the  American  Baptist 
Publication  Society. 

And  now  in  proceeding  to  the  study  of 
these  passages,  let  us  attempt  a  difficult 
thing,  namely,  to  divest  our  minds  of  all 
inherited  preconceptions,  to  restrain  our- 
selves from  injecting  into  the  meaning  of 
the  text  ideas  received  from  outside 
sources,  to  read  the  familiar  sections  as 
if  they  were  entirely  new  to  us.  For  so 
only  can  we  gather  from  them  their  natu- 
ral and  true  meaning. 


II. 

Took — Blest — Bra  ke —  Ga  ve. 

IN  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand, 
Jesus  took  the  loaves  and  gave 
thanks  and  blessed  and  brake  them  and 
gave  to  his  disciples.  In  the  record  of 
the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand  the  same 
acts  and  words  appear.  In  the  meal  at 
Emmaus,  the  Saviour  "  when  he  had  sat 
down  with  them  to  meat,  took  the  bread 
and  blessed  it  and  brake  and  gave  to 
them  "  and  "he  was  known  of  them  in 
the  breaking  of  the  bread."  Paul  also 
in  the  shipwreck  took  bread  and  gave 
thanks  and  "  brake  it  and  began  to  eat  " 
and   "  themselves  also  took  food." 

In  each  of  these  cases,  "  the  breaking 
of  bread  "  pertains  to  the  taking  of  daily 
food.  And  when  some  old  fashioned 
brother  with  old  fashioned  hospitality 
expresses    the   hope  that    at  some    time 


Took — Blest — Brake— Gave.         1 1 

you  will  stop  and  ''  brake  bread  "  with 
him  and  his  household,  that  is,  eat  a 
meal  with  them,  he  uses  strictly  biblical 
phraseology. 

Be  it  carefully  observed  that  when 
Jesus  at  his  last  Passover  took  bread  and 
gave  thanks  and  blessed  and  brake  it 
and  gave  to  the  disciples,  he  did  nothing 
peculiar  to  that  occasion.  He  had  done 
the  same  at  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand and  of  the  four  thousand  and  did  it 
afterwards  in  the  meal  at  Emmaus,  while 
Paul  did  in  like  manner  on  his  vessel, 
and  indeed  every  pious  Jew  did  all  this 
whenever  he  took  food. 

Says  Prof.  W.  N.  Clarke,  in  the  Amer- 
ican Connnentary,  on  the  "  took  bread 
and  blessed,"  of  Mark  xiv.  22:  "This 
was  no  *  prayer  of  consecration,'  it  was 
the  simple  '  grace  '  or  '  blessing  '  over 
food."  And  of  the  thanksgiving  over 
the  cup,  (v.  23),  he  says ;  ''  This  too  was 
a  simple  '  grace  before  meat.'  " 

Nor  is  there  anything  peculiar  in  the 
fact  that  there  was  a   thanksgiving  first 


12  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

over  the  bread  and  then  over  the  wine. 
In  the  Passover  celebration,  as  will  be 
seen  in  all  accounts  of  the  Jewish  paschal 
customs,  there  was  a  succession  of  bless- 
ings asked  over  the  different  courses  of 
the  meal.  We  may  note  also  that  in 
the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand,  (Mark 
viii.  6,  7),  there  was  one  blessing  over  the 
loaves  and  another  over  the  fishes. 

On  that  Passover  night  every  Jewish 
father  of  a  family  took  bread  and  gave 
thanks  and  blessed  and  brake  it  and  eave 
to  those  that  sat  with  him,  and  then 
blessed  and  gave  out  the  wine  also,  just 
the  same  as  did  Jesus.  There  was  then 
nothing  in  this  to  separate  Jesus*  last 
Passover  from  previous  Passover  occasions 
observed  by  himself,  or  from  the  ordinary 
Passover  gatherings  of  Jewish  families, 
nor  indeed  from  the  daily  meals  of  any 
pious  Israelite.  The  force  of  the  record 
is  simply  that  in  doing  these  things, 
which  were  customary  at  all  meals,  he 
added  a  special  injunction,  an  admoni- 
tion peculiar  to  that  occasion. 


III. 

The  Old  and  the  New, 

THE  point  may  be  one  of  no  great  im- 
portance, but  carefulness  of  state- 
ment forbids  us  to  declare,  as  many  have 
done,  that  it  was  not  till  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  Passover  feast,  the  supper 
of  the  old  dispensation,  that  Jesus  ap- 
pointed the  new  memorial.  For  the 
record  expressly  says  that  it  was  "  as  they 
were  eating"  the  paschal  meal  that  he 
bade  them  henceforth  eat  in  remem- 
brance of  him.  Says  Edersheim  ;  "  If 
now  we  ask  ourselves  at  what  part  of  the 
paschal  supper  the  new  institution  was 
made,  we  cannot  doubt  that  it  was  before 
the  supper  was  completely  ended."  So 
say  other  commentators. 

Nor  was  the  ''  cup  after  supper"  some- 
thing apart  from  and  independent  of  that 
meal  ;  it    was    a   concluding   cup  of   the 


14  CJirist  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

Passover  ritual.  As  the  cup  mentioned 
in  Luke  xxii.  17,  might  be  termed  a  cup 
before  the  supper,  though  it  was  in  fact 
the  first  course  of  the  repast,  so  "  the 
cup  after  supper  "  was  simply  its  closing 
portion.  As  the  coffee  at  the  modern 
formal  dinner  might  be  said  to  come 
after  the  meal  or  on  the  other  hand  to  be 
the  concluding  part  thereof,  so  ''  the  cup 
after  supper  " — which  indeed  came  after 
the  main  portion  of  the  supper,  namely, 
the  lamb  and  the  bitter  herbs — was  in 
fact  but  the  final  course  of  the  repast, 
not  something  after  its  full  conclusion 
and  thus  entirely  unrelated  thereto.  It 
was  in  giving  the  paschal  bread  that 
Jesus  commanded  them  to  eat  in  remem- 
brance of  him ;  it  was  in  handing  a 
paschal  cup  that  he  bade  them  drink  in 
memory  of  his  death.  Indeed  it  may  be 
said  that  the  Passover  celebration  was 
not  fully  at  an  end  till  they  "had  sung 
an  hymn  "  before  they  *'  went  out,"  this 
hymn,  a  part  of  the  Great  Hallel,  being 
the  standard   conclusion  of   the    paschal 


The  Old  and  The  New.  1 5 

rites.  It  is  the  general  view  which  is 
given  by  Abbott  in  his  Commentary  on 
Matthew  when  he  says  that  the  expres- 
sion,— as  they  were  eating,  '*  clearly 
indicates  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  in- 
stituted during  the  progress  of  the  PascJial 
Supper,  not  as  a  separate  ordinance  at  its 
close." 

Nor  can  we  say,  as  many  have  done, 
that  the  Passover  was  then  done  away 
and  the  new  memorial  put  in  its  place. 
The  Apostles  certainly  did  not  under- 
stand this  to  be  the  case,  for  they  went 
right  on  keeping  the  Passover  just  the 
same  as  before. 

They  discontinued  none  of  the  ancient 
rites.  Peter  and  John,  (Acts  iii.  13), 
went  up  to  the  Temple  at  the  hour  of 
prayer  or  evening  sacrifice,  it  evidently 
never  occurring  to  them,— what  later 
theologians  have  taught, — that  the  Leviti- 
cal  sacrifices  were  done  away  in  the  cruci- 
fixion. The  fact  that  the  disciples  had 
''  favor  with  all  the  people*,"  (Acts  ii.  47), 
shows  that  they  did  not  shock  their  feU 


1 6  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

low  Israelites  by  abandoning  their  ances- 
tral observances.  They  are  well  repre- 
sented by  the  good  Ananias  of  Damascus 
who  was  "  a  devout  man  according  to  the 
law,"  keeping  all  the  Mosaic  rites  so 
strictly  as  to  have  *'  a  good  report  of  all 
the  Jews"  (Acts  xxii.  12).  In  Acts  xx. 
6,  Luke  notes  "  the  days  of  unleavened 
bread,"  and  in  verse  16  we  see  Paul 
*' hastening  if  it  were  possible  to  be  at 
Jerusalem  the  day  of  Pentecost."  The 
Apostles  and  the  other  believing  Jews 
did  not  in  any  point  abandon  the  Mosaic 
ritual.  Their  new  faith  and  order  was 
merely  an  addition  to  their  Judaism,  not 
in  any  way  a  substitute  therefor. 

To  illustrate  ;  they  did  not  put  baptism 
in  the  place  of  circumcision.  Not  only 
did  they  baptize  those  who  were  already 
circumcised  but  Timothy  was  circumcised 
though  already  baptized,  and  it  was 
strongly  urged  that  circumcision  be  re- 
quired of  the  thousands  of  baptized  Gen- 
tiles also.  If  Paul  knew  that  "baptism 
took  the  place  of  circumcision,"  why  did 


The  Old  and  The  New,  1 7 

he  not  flourish  that  fact  in  the  face  of 
his  bitter  opponents  when  this  would  at 
once  and  completely  have  overthrown 
their  demand  for  the  circumcision  of  the 
Gentile  converts? 

So  far  from  there  being  on  the  part  of 
the  Jewish  disciples  a  tendency  to 
abandon  the  Mosaic  law,  we  find  among 
them  more  than  twenty  years  after  the 
Day  of  Pentecost  a  well  nigh  overpower- 
ing demand  that  the  Gentile  converts 
also  be  required  to  observe  it,  a  demand 
to  which  the  Galatian  churches  were 
actually  brought  to  succumb.  The  fact 
that  it  was  necessary  as  late  as  the  year 
50  or  thereabout  to  lay  before  an  apos- 
tolic council  the  question  whether  the 
believing  Gentiles  should  be  compelled 
to  keep  Moses'  law,  implies  that  no  one 
even  dreamed  that  the  Jewish  disciples 
might  abandon  it.  A  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury after  the  resurrection  we  find  that 
the  *' many  thousands"  of  Jews  which 
believe  are  "  all  zealous  of  the  law,"  (Acts 
xxi.  20),  that  is,  they  are  still  circumcis- 


1 8  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

ing  their  children,  keeping  the  Seventh 
Day,  and  offering  the  Levitical  sacrifices 
just  as  strictly  as  their  unbelieving  coun- 
trymen, or  as  their  fathers  had  done 
before  them.  And  this  is  said,  more- 
over, not  merely  of  a  faction  but  of 
''all,"  including  of  course  the  Apostles. 

Not  even  "gradually"  did  they  give 
up  the  ancient  ritual ;  for  that  word 
"  zealous  "  signifies  more  than  a  broad 
minded  toleration  of  antiquated  usage  ;  it 
implies  a  vehement  insistence  on  the 
strictest  observance.  And  Paul  himself 
took  part  in  that  ceremony  o/  the  vow 
the  more  emphatically  to  declare  that  on 
this  point  he  did  not  differ  from  the 
strictest  of  his  fellow  Hebrews,  and  that 
he  did  not  teach  that  the  Jewish  disciples 
should  cease  to  observe  the  Mosaic  rites. 

It  is  not  strange  that  the  Jewish  be- 
lievers as  well  as  their  unbelieving  coun- 
trymen were  shocked  at  the  report  that 
Paul  was  teaching  that  the  ancient  usages 
could  lawfully  be  discontinued.  Be  it 
observed,  that  in   the  Law  the  Passover 


The  Old  and  The  New^  19 

was  to  be  kept  not  merely  till  some 
new  memorial  should  be  instituted  but 
"  throughout  your  generations  by  an 
ordinance  forever."  (Exodus  xii.  14). 
Circumcision  was  ordained  not  for  a  few 
centuries  merely  and  then  to  give  place 
to  another  rite  but  "  throughout  their 
generations  for  an  everlasting  covenant." 
(Genesis  xvii.  7,  13).  And  the  Seventh 
Day,  the  day  of  God's  rest  from  creation, 
was  to  be  hallowed  not  merely  till  some 
greater  event  should  confer  greater  honor 
on  some  other  day  but  "  throughout 
their  generations  for  a  perpetual  cove- 
nant, a  sign  forever."  (Exodus  xxxi.  16, 
17).  In  the  face  of  such  explicit  declara- 
tions, the  idea  that  a  Jew  was  at  liberty 
to  abandon  these  observances  seemed  an 
impious  rejection  of  the  plainest  word  of 
God. 

Says  Prof.  Stifler  of  Crozer  Theologi- 
cal Seminary  {Bibliothcca  Sacra,  Oct., 
1896);  "There  is  no  reason  why  a  Jew 
on  becoming  a  Christian  should  cease  to 
be   a   Jew.      Circumcision,  the    Seventh 


20  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

Day,  the  distinction  in  meats,  have  not 
been  abolished  for  him."  This  is  saying 
that  for  a  converted  Jew  to  neglect  cir- 
cumcising his  children  or  to  discontinue 
the  observance  of  the  Seventh  Day  is  as 
wrong  for  him  as  it  would  be  for  us  to  re- 
fuse to  be  baptized,  a  doctrine  directly 
conflicting  with  the  ideas  of  modern 
churches,  but  sustained  by  the  passages 
above  quoted.  If  the  w^ords  of  these 
texts  do  not  enjoin  the  perpetuity  of 
those  ancient  institutions,  what  form 
of  speech  would  serve  to  convey  that 
idea?  Upon  what  principle  of  the  con- 
struction of  statutes  can  writers  on  eccle- 
siastical polity  declare  that  the  Christian 
Jew  of  to-day  need  not  keep  the  ancient 
Sabbath  or  the  Passover  without  their  at 
the  same  time  absolving  the  Friends 
from  the  necessity  of  the  observance  of 
water  baptism  ?  * 

*0n  the  other  hand,  as  against  the  principle  of 
"strict  construction,"  it  may  be  noted  that  although 
the  Passover  law  plainly  said,  "  And  thus  shall  ye 
eat  it ;  with  your  loins  girded,  your  shoes  on  your  feet 
and    vour    staff  in  vour    hand  ;  and  ve  shall  eat  it  in 


The  Old  and  The  New.  2 1 

The  Jewish  disciples  were  as  thor- 
oughly Jewish  as  the  Sadducees  or  Phari- 
sees or  any  other  "  sect  "  of  the  Israelitish 
cult.  Till  the  burning  of  the  Temple 
they  continued  to  offer  the  Levitical 
sacrifices  and  to  observe  the  other  Mosaic 
precepts  just  as  strictly  as  they  had  done 
before  they  believed  on  Jesus.  And  so 
we  must  say  that  their  eating  of  bread  in 
remembrance  of  the  Master  did  not  "  take 
the  place"  of  their  Passover  supper  but 
was  observed  in  addition  to,  parallel  with 
and  independent  of  the  same.  All  must 
accept  the  statement  of  Prof.  McGiffert 
in  his  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age  : 
"  There  is  no  indication  in  our  sources 
that  in  these  early  days  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  thought  of   as  a  continuation  of  or 

haste,"  (Exodus  xii.  ii),  the  Saviour  and  the  Eleven, 
with  the  other  Jews  of  their  time,  ate  it  reclining  on 
couches  and  with  the  utmost  deliberation.  It  was  also 
written,  "  And  none  of  you  shall  go  out  of  ihe  door  of 
his  house  until  the  mornino;,"  but  Jesus  and  his  com- 
pany **  went  out  into  the  Mount  of  Olives."  What 
principle  is  to  be  adopted  in  construing  the  commands 
of  Scripture  concerning  ritual  } 


22  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

substitute  for  the  Jewish  Passover  or 
that  any  paschal  significance  whatever 
attached  to  it." 

And  their  adherence  to  the  Mosaic  Law 
makes  plain  beyond  contradiction  another 
noteworthy  fact,  namely,  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  did  not 
hold  the  doctrine  of  the  modern  church 
of  Rome  that  the  bread  of  the  supper  is 
a  sacrifice,  the  table  an  altar  and  the 
minister  a  priest.  For  the  old  Altar,  the 
old  Sacrifices  and  the  old  Priesthood, 
which  still  remained,  were  in  their  view 
still  the  appointed  media  of  atonement 
with  God,  and  of  course  they  cannot 
have  believed  in  two  altars,  two  priest- 
hoods and  two  contemporaneous  sets  of 
sacrifices. 


IV. 
''  Hoc  Estr 

WHAT    did    Jesus   mean   when   he 
said,  ''  This    is    my    body, — my 
blood"? 

The  church  of  Rome  in  the  decrees  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  declares  that  ''  by 
the  consecration  of  the  bread  and  of 
the  wine  a  conversion  is  made  of  the 
whole  substance  of  the  bread  into  the 
substance  of  the  body  of  Christ  our  Lord 
and  of  the  whole  substance  of  the  wine 
into  the  substance  of  his  blood."  Under 
this  doctrine  the  words  of  Jesus  could  be 
paraphrased  as: — This  which  a  moment 
ago  was  bread,  and  which  to  all  the  senses 
appears  still  to  be  bread,  is  bread  no 
longer,  but  has  been  transubstantiated 
and  changed  so  that  now  it  is  my  body. 
The,  "  This  /j,"  would  be  construed  as 
meaning, — This  Jias  become — my  body. 


24  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

The  Lutherans  go  so  far  in  this  direc- 
tion as  to  declare  that  ''  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present  and  are 
distributed  to  those  that  eat  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,"  {Augsburg  Confession)  \  and 
that  *'  the  true  body  and  true  blood  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  truly  and  sub- 
stantially present  and  are  distributed 
with  the  bread  and  wine  and  are  taken 
with  the  mouth  by  all  those  who  use  this 
sacrament  be  they  worthy  or  unworthy, 
good  or  bad,  believers  or  unbelievers  " 
{Formula  of  Concord).  They  deny  tran- 
substantiation  and  hold  that  the  bread 
and  wine  remain  such,  but  they  assert  that 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  mysteri- 
ously and  supernaturally  united  with  the 
physical  elements  so  that  the  former  are 
eaten  and  drunk  when  the  latter  are. 
Under  this  doctrine  the,  ''  This  is " 
might  be  paraphrased  as, — Here  is — my 
body. 

The  Presbyterians  declare  in  the  West- 
minster Confession  that  worthy  receivers 
do  inwardly  by  faith  really  and    indeed 


'' Hoc  Estr  25 

receive  and  feed  upon  Christ  crucified, 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  being  really 
present  to  the  faith  of  believers.  What 
they  mean  by  this  the  reader  must  decide 
for  himself. 

The  Baptists,  however,  and  many  others 
with  them,  regard  the  bread  and  wine  as 
mere  symbols.  They  declare  the  physi- 
cal elements  in  the  new  memorial  to  be 
simply  remembrancers,  as  were  the  lamb 
and  the  bitter  herbs  in  the  Passover 
meal.  They  deny  that  the  partaker  is 
spiritually  affected  by  the  bread  and  wine 
except  indirectly  as  was  the  pious  Israel- 
ite in  receiving  the  paschal  symbols. 

The  theory  of  the  Baptists  concerning 
the  breaking  of  bread  is  the  same  as  their 
belief  regarding  baptism,  namely,  that  the 
outward  act  is  merely  symbolic.  Though 
in  opposition  to  the  Society  of  Friends 
they  declare  that  water-baptism  is  to  be 
retained, — as  a  coronation  ceremony  is 
fitting  when  one  has  become  a  king, — 
yet  they  declare  also  just  as  emphatically 
as  do  the  Friends  that  salvation  is  in  no 


26  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

way  conditioned  on  baptism  but  comes 
by  faith  alone.  And  it  is  in  what  they 
consider  the  only  logical  carrying  out  of 
this  doctrine  that  they  will  baptize  none 
but  believers  and  will  use  nothing  but 
immersion  as  baptism. 

The  Church  of  Rome,  holding  that 
there  is  a  regenerative  efficacy  in  the 
baptismal  water,  such  that  one  is  truly 
"  christened,"  that  is,  made  a  Christian, 
in  baptism,  logically  baptizes  unconscious 
infants,  and  also  adults,  who  give  practi- 
cally no  signs  of  **  grace."  But  Baptists 
holding  that  baptism  is  merely  a  symbol 
of  a  spiritual  change  already  wrought, 
baptize  none  but  those  who  give  evidence 
of  being  regenerate  already  and  without 
baptsim.  Again,  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  practised  immersion  down  to  the 
thirteenth  century,  and  in  Great  Britain 
till  the  sixteenth,  believes  baptism  to  be 
essential  to  salvation,  and  so  when  one 
was  converted  in  sickness,  and  immersion. 
the  ordinary  baptism,  was  out  of  the 
question,     it     administered     pouring    or 


*■'  Hoc  Esty  27 

merely  sprinkling.  But  Baptists  hold 
that  water-baptism  is  in  no  way  essential 
to  salvation,  and  so  when  the  apostolic 
ceremony  of  immersion  is  impracticable 
they  do  not  have  recourse  to  sprinkling 
or  any  other  substitute  but  unhesitatingly 
let  the  convert  die  entirely  unbapti'zed. 
So  far  from  their  believing  that  immersion 
is  essential  to  salvation,  as  some  ill-in- 
formed persons  have  ridiculously  sup- 
posed them  to  hold,  the  very  fact  that 
Baptists  will  practice  nothing  but  immer- 
sion— which  often  involves  the  necessity 
of  letting  sick  converts  and  prisoners  die 
without  baptism  — shows  plainly  that  they 
consider  water-baptism  in  no  way  neces- 
sary to  salvation.  Holding  that  faith  is 
the  only  condition  to  salvation  they  do 
not  scruple  in  the  least,  in  a  case  of  diffi- 
culty, to  let  a  convert  die  ivitJiout  any 
baptismal  ceremony  zv  hat  ever.  As  com- 
pared with  others  they  make  very  little  of 
baptism. 

Now  as  Baptists  hold  that  baptism  will 
not  make  a  man    a  Christian    any  more 


28  Christ  ill  the  Daily  Meal. 

than  putting  a  crown  on  his  head  will 
make  him  a  king,  and  as  they  deny  that 
immersion  is  essential  to  salvation  any 
more  than  a  coronation  ceremony  is  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  real  kingship,  or  a 
uniform  to  one's  being  a  soldier,  so  they 
declare  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  only 
symbols,  mere  outward  emblems. 

This  symbolic  conception  is  often  called 
the  Zwinglian  theory,  after  the  great 
Swiss  reformer.  He  did  indeed  adopt  it 
concerning  the  breaking  of  bread,  and 
when  Hubmeyer  and  others  of  his  associ- 
ates went  on  and  applied  it  to  baptism 
also,  Zwingli  was  at  first  inclined  to  go 
with  them.  But  when  he  perceived  that 
the  baptism  of  none  but  believers  logically 
involved  a  discontinuance  of  the  union 
between  the  Church  and  the  State  he 
shrank  back,  and  at  last  became  a  violent 
persecutor  of  his  friends  who  had  adopted 
Baptist  views.  Now  it  is  hardly  proper 
to  name  a  theory  after  a  man  who  shrank 
from  carrying  it  out  to  its  full  extent. 
It  would  be   more   truly  historic   if  the 


"  Hoc  Estr  29 

symbolic    conception    were    called     the 
Baptist  theory. 

Under  this  theory,  the  declaration, 
**This  is  my  body,"  is  construed  meta- 
phorically, like  ''  The  field  is  [in  a  figure] 
the  world;"  "  The  tares  are  [representa- 
tively] the  children  of  the  wicked  one  ;  " 
"  The  seven  good  kine  are  seven  years  ;  " 
"  I  am  the  vine  ;  "  and,  "  That  rock  was 
Christ."  As  of  a  picture  we  say,  *'  This 
is  Napoleon,"  so  one  may  understand 
Jesus  as  saying, — This  is  my  body,  sym- 
bolically :  and, — This  is,  in  an  image, 
my  blood. 


Symbolism, 

UNDER  any  theory,  the  term,  ''the 
body  of  Christ,"  must  refer  to 
Christ  himself.  The  mere  flesh  of  Jesus 
was  but  chemical  matter  and  no  one  can 
show  that  it  differed  from  the  flesh  of 
any  other  man  ''  born  of  a  woman." 
In  John  vi.  56,  57,  the  expression,  "  He 
that  eateth  my  flesh,"  is  used  as  an 
equivalent  to,  ''  He  that  eateth  me." 
We  may  say  therefore  with  the  Helvetic 
Confession,  "  His  body  and  blood,  that 
is.  Himself " ;  and  with  Dean  Stanley 
{Christian  Institutions),  "  As  in  other 
parts  of  the  Bible  the  hand,  the  heart,  the 
face  of  God,  are  used  for  God  himself, 
so  the  body,  the  flesh,  of  Christ  are  used 
for  Christ  himself,  for  his  whole  person- 
ality and  character." 

And  now  let  us  ask  in  what  sense  one 


Symbolism.  31 

may   say   that    Christ's   body  and  blood 
are  represented  by  the  bread  and  wine. 

Taking  the  latter  first,  we  recall  that 
vivid  picture  in  Hebrew  poetry  of  the 
warrior  with  dyed  garments  whose  ap- 
parel is  red  ''  like  him  that  treadeth  in 
the  wine  fat,"  (Isaiah  Ixiii.  i,)  and  in 
Deuteronomy  xxxii.  14,  the  red  wine  is 
termed  "  the  blood  of  the  grape."  One 
may  understand  that  it  is  this  familiar 
comparison  of  wine  to  blood  which  Jesus 
uses,  bidding  them  note  in  the  crimson 
of  the  cup  an  image  of  his  blood  shed  for 
them. 

Some  have  thought  that  they  beheld  a 
symbolism  in  the  pouring  out  of  the 
wine.  It  may  be  noted  however,  that 
the  scriptures  nowhere  speak  of  the  wine 
as  "  poured  out."  For  all  that  we  are  told 
to  the  contrary  it  may  have  been  dipped 
out.  We  are  not  informed  how  the  cup 
was  filled.  It  is  in  the  wine  itself,  not 
in  what  is  done  to  it,  that  the  symbol  is 
found. 

It  may  also  be  remarked  that  if  it  be 


32  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

only  by  virtue  of  its  color  that  it  repre- 
sents Christ's  blood,  it  matters  not  wheth- 
er the  wine  be  fermented  or  unfermented. 
The  presence  of  alcohol  is  in  no  way 
necessary  to  the  symbolism.  The  spirit- 
ual is  not  dependent  on  the  spirituous. 

And  though  we  can  hardly  accept  the 
view  of  a  certain  distinguished  author 
that  ''cider,  milk  or  even  water  may  be 
substituted  for  wine,"  for  neither  of  these 
has  the  suggestive  color,  yet  the  red  juice 
of  some  other  berry  than  the  grape  could 
represent  Christ's  blood. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  note  that 
wine  had  no  part  in  the  Passover  ritual 
as  ordained  by  Moses  ;  it  was  introduced 
only  by  "  the  elders."  But  Jesus  could 
use  it  as  a  symbol  all  the  same. 

Turning  now  to  the  bread,  it  will  be  re- 
membered that  many  have  thought  they 
saw  in  it  as  well  as  in  the  wine  a  direct 
reference  to  Christ's  death,  the  breaking 
of  the  bread  being  supposed  to  be  in- 
tended to  present  "  His  broken  body." 
It    should     be     noted    however    that    in 


Synibolisni.  33 

I  Corinthians  xi.  24,  "  My  body  which  is 
broken  for  you," — the  only  passage  in  the 
Common  Version  in  which  the  term 
broken  is  applied  to  Christ's  body,  the 
Revised  Version  omits  the  word,  while 
on  the  other  hand  the  Gospel  of  John 
(xix.  36),  calls  especial  attention  to  the 
fact  that  Christ's  body  \vas  not  broken. 
Not  only  each  bone  but  the  flesh  of  Jesus 
also  was  left  substantially  whole.  His 
body  was  not  torn  and  mangled  but  only 
"  pierced  "  and  to  speak  of  it  as  broken  is 
as  incorrect  as  it  would  be  to  say  that  a 
loaf  of  bread  is  broken  when  the  tine  of 
a  fork  is  thrust  into  it. 

Again,  why  should  a  reference  to 
Christ's  death  be  supposed  in  the  break- 
ing of  bread  at  that  Passover  supper  any 
more  than  on  other  Passover  occasions 
and  in  all  other  meals?  When  Jesus 
broke  bread  in  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand  did  he  intend  to  symbolize  his 
death  ?  Did  Paul  intend  a  reference  to 
this  when  he  broke  bread  on  his  vessel  ? 
Was  there  a  reference  to  Christ's  death 


34  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

in  the  daily  meals  of  all  the  Jews,  among 
whom  the  breaking  of  bread  was  the  pro- 
cedure in,  as  it  was  a  name  for,  the  or- 
dinary repast  ?  Why  should  we  in  this 
one  case  ascribe  to  the  breaking  of  bread 
a  significance  which  plainly  it  did  not 
have  elsewhere  ?  The  fact  is  that  to  say 
there  was  a  reference  to  Christ's  death  in 
the  breaking  of  the  bread  is  as  purely 
fanciful  as  it  would  be  to  imagine  that 
death  was  symbolized  by  the  reclining  at 
the  table. 

Jesus  already  in  speaking  to  the  multi- 
tude (John  vi.)  had  referred  to  bread  as  a 
symbol  of  himself.  And  so  at  his  last 
Passover,  the  Lord  may  be  understood 
to  present  the  loaf  as  an  object  parable, 
saying, — This  which  ye  eat  to  sustain 
your  mortal  existence  is  a  symbol  of  me 
whom  ye  must  receive  as  the  support  of 
your  spiritual  life. 

The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  under  the 
question  why  Christ  doth  call  the  bread 
his  body,  answers  that  like  as  bread  sus- 
tains this  temporal  life,  so  his  body  is  the 
true  meat  of  our  souls. 


Symbolism,  35 

The  Belgic  Confession,  the  standard  of 
the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  says,  "  God 
hath  given  us  for  the  support  of  the  bod- 
ily and  earthly  life,  earthly  and  common 
bread  -^^  *  *  *  but  for  the  support  of  the 
spiritual  and  heavenly  life  which  believ- 
ers have,  he  hath  sent  a  living  bread 
which  descended  from  heaven,  namely, 
Jesus  Christ,"  and, ''  Christ  that  he  might 
represent  unto  us  this  spiritual  and  heav- 
enly bread  hath  instituted  an  earthly  and 
visible  bread  as  a  sacrament  of  his  body." 

In  like  manner  the  Articles  of  Religion 
of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  de- 
clare the  Supper  ''  a  symbol  of  the  soul's 
feeding  upon  Christ." 

Charles  Hodge  {Systematic  Theology^ 
makes  the  bread  an  ''  emblem  of  him 
who  declared  himself  to  be  the  true 
bread  which  came  down  from  heaven " 
and  he  says  that  the  Supper  "  represents 
our  feeding  upon  Christ  for  our  spiritual 
nourishment."  Such  quotations  could 
be  multiplied. 

We  may  remark  in  passing  that  if  it  be 


3^  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

simply  in  its  character  of  food  that  the 
bread  symbolizes  Christ,  it  is  a  vain  con- 
ceit to  dwell  on  merely  incidental  facts 
such  as  that  the  bread  is  made  from  sepa- 
rate grains  and  that  the  grains  must  be 
crushed.  This  is  an  attempt  to  "  make 
the  parable  go  on  all  fours." 

Nor  matters  it  whether  the  bread  be 
leavened  or  unleavened,  since  in  both 
cases  it  is  food  the  same.  The  fact  that 
the  bread  was  unleavened  presents  it  as 
travelers'  food,  the  bread  of  haste,  a 
matter  of  sicrnificance  in  the  ancient 
memorial  but  of  none  in  the  new.  And 
of  course  one  need  not  be  troubled  by  a 
question  like  that  which  Parkman  men- 
tions as  discussed  between  Huguenots 
and  Catholics  among  the  "  Pioneers  of 
France  in  the  New  World,"  whether  the 
sacramental  bread  could  be  made  of  the 
meal  of  Indian  corn.  Bread  is  bread,  no 
matter  of  what  it  be  compounded. 

And  if  it  be  merely  as  sustenance  of 
the  body  that  the  bread  symbolizes 
Christ  the  support  of  the  soul,  the  term 


Symbolism.  37 

bread  may  be  given  the  same  meaning 
in  this  connection  as  in  the,  *'  Give  us 
this  day  our  daily  bread,"  and  may 
include  all  forms  of  food.  In  Acts  ii.  46 
and  xxvii.  34-36,  where  the  breaking  of 
bread  is  mentioned,  <^P™f,  bread,  is  made 
synonymous  with  i"po9'7,  nourishmejit.^ 

Alford  on  Matthew  xxvi.  26,  makes 
rovTo^  tJiis^  equivalent  to  ''  the  food  of 
man  "  and  says  that  in  this  passage  "  we 
have  bread  '  the  staff  of  life  '  identified 
with  the  body  of  the  Lord."  This  con- 
struction makes  the  term  bread  include 
all  varieties  of  food,  and  it  would  sanction 
what  is  said  sometimes  to  have  occurred 
in  far  northern  islands,  the  use  of  dried 
fish  in  place  of  a  loaf  in  the  church  sup- 
per.f 

Instead,    therefore    of    regarding    the 

*And  while  tovto,  this,  being  neuter,  cannot  agree 
with  aprog,  bread^  which  is  masculine,  it  will,  by  coin- 
cidence, agree  with  ftpcjua,food. 

t  And  would  it  not  be  limiting  the  power  of  the 
priestly  Hoc  est  to  doubt  that  it  could  transubstantiate 
something  else  than  a  wheaten  wafer  into  the  true 
body,  something  else  than  grape  wine  into  the  true 
blood  ? 


38  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal, 

bread  and  wine  as,  like  the  kine  and 
wheat-heads  of  Pharaoh's  dream,  mere 
duplicate  emblems  of  the  same  thing, 
many  regard  the  bread  as  symbolizing 
Christ  himself  in  his  whole  personality 
and  work,  while  the  wine  sets  forth  the 
crowning  act  of  his  ministry,  his  yielding 
himself  a  sacrifice  ;  the  bread  recalling 
the  whole  Christ  and  the  wine  his  death. 
So  Godet  on  Luke  says  that  the  supper 
seems  '*  to  represent  the  totality  of  salva- 
tion ;  the  bread,  the  communication  of 
the  life  of  Christ ;  the  wine,  the  gift  of  par- 
don ;  in  other  words,  according  to  Paul's 
language,  sanctification  and  justification." 
And  on  i  Corinthians  x.  16,  he  says,  "  In 
the  blood  represented  by  the  cup  we  con- 
template and  apply  to  ourselves  Christ 
dead  for  us  ;  in  the  body,  represented  by 
the  bread  we  appropriate  Christ  living  in 
usr 

The  late  Dr.  H.  J.  Van  Dyke  writes, 
"  Christ  did  not  say,  '  This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  my  death  '  *  *  -^  -^^  Christ  him- 
self in  his  divine  fullness  and  not  any  part 


Symbolism.  39 

of  his  person  or  of  his  history  is  the  sub- 
ject and  the  substance  of  the  sacrament. 
His  death  as  the  sacrifice  for  sin,  though 
it  is  the  central  point,  is  but  a  small  part 
of  the  history  of  his  relation  to  his  re- 
deemed people." 


VI. 

"  Our  Daily  Bread''  as  the  Body  of 
Christ. 

TO  determine  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
''This  is  my  body,"  let  us  ask, — 
Just  when  does  the  bread  become  the 
body  of  Christ  ? 

The  Roman  CathoHc  answers  that  it  is 
when  the  consecrated  priest  utters  the 
august  formula  that  the  mysterious  change 
takes  place.  But  what  evidence  has  he 
that  any  change  is  wrought  in  the  bread 
and  wine? 

It  is  not  correct  to  say  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  takes  Christ's  words  ''  literally." 
His  construction  of  the  Lord's  declara- 
tion is, — This  is  my  body  as  a  monient 
ago  it  was  not.  The  latter  clause  how- 
ever is  an    unwarranted   addition  ;     it   is 


"  Our  Daily  Bread.''  41 

not  expressed  nor  in  any  way  implied  in 
Jesus'  own  words. 

One  has  no  right  to  construe  the  dec- 
laration, "  This  is  my  body,"  as  mean- 
ing,— This  has  been  changed  into,  has 
become,  my  body.  I'heword  /f  does  not 
mean  Has  become ;  it  predicates  simply 
existence  without  any  suggestion  of  a 
beginning.  The  declaration,  ''This  is  a 
diamond,"  does  not  imply  that  it  was 
formerly  something  else  than  a  diamond. 
And  if  to  a  group  of  tourists  it  be  said, 
"  That  officer  on  the  gray  horse  is  the 
Kaiser,"  he  does  not  then  first  become 
Kaiser.  And  so  the  words,  "  This  is  my 
body,"  do  not  in  any  way  suggest  that 
it  has  not  been  Christ's  body  hereto- 
fore. 

The  implication  is  in  fact  just  the  op- 
posite. What  a  thing  is  to-day  we  must 
assume  it  to  have  been  yesterday  and 
last  week  and  indefinitely  hitherto.  If  a 
man  asserts  that  what  a  thing  is  now,  it 
formerly  was  not,  the  burden  of  proof  is 
on   him.     Until    therefore    it    be    clearly 


42  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

shown  that  the  bread  has  indeed  under- 
gone a  change  we  must  hold  that  the 
loaf  which  is  Christ's  body  now  as  it  lies 
on  the  church  table  was  his  body  just  the 
same  before  it  came  to  the  table  and  has 
been  his  body  from  the  first. 

Till  the  additional  idea  has  been 
proved  untenable  the  words,  ''This  is," 
mean  also, — This  was.  Wherefore  the 
''  literal  "  and  only  logical  construction 
of  Jesus'  words  is, — This  is  my  body 
as  it  ahvays  has  been. 

Says  Martin  Luther  in  arguing  for 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  ''  We 
should  allow  the  words  of  Scripture  to 
retain  their  natural  force  and  should 
assign  no  other  signification  to  them." 
But  he  himself  directly  violates  this 
canon  and  ascribes  an  "  other  significa- 
tion "  to  the  words,  "This  is  my  body," 
when  he  construes  them  as  meaning, — 
This  is  my  body,  as  it  has  not  been  here- 
tofore. The  "natural  force"  of  the 
Lord's  words  is, — This  is  my  body  as  it 
has  been  from  the  first. 


''  Our  Daily  Breads  43 

Take,  again,  the  quip  ascribed  to 
Queen  Elizabeth, — 

"  It  was  the  Word  that  spake  it. 
He  took  the  bread  and  brake  it, 
And  what  his  word  doth  make  it, 
That  I  believe  and  take  it." 

This  is  very  good  ;  but  what  does  the 
Lord  "make  it"?  He  does  not  say  or 
hint  that  the  bread  has  undergone  a 
change  so  that  it  is  now  what  it  was  not 
before.  No  suggestion  of  any  such  trans- 
mutation is  found  in  the  Saviour's  words 
nor  in  the  necessities  of  the  case.  And 
in  the  failure  to  produce  evidence  of  a 
change,  all  forms  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence,  whether  Roman,  Lutheran 
or  Anglican,  break  down  utterly  and  com 
pletely. 

To  determine  therefore  the  sense  in 
which  the  bread  on  the  Church  table  is 
Christ's  body,  we  have  only  to  inquire  in 
what  sense  it  was  his  body  before  it  came 
to  the  table.  Certainly  it  was  not  such  in 
constituent  substance.  It  was  however 
his  body  even  then  in  symbol,  the  food 


44  CJirist  hi  the  Daily  Meal. 

of  the  natural  life  being  an  image  of 
Christ  the  bread  of  heaven.  Until  there- 
fore some  one  shows  that  it  was  or  has 
become  his  body  in  some  other  sense,  the 
only  fair  construction  we  can  assign  to 
Jesus'  declaration  is, — This  is  my  body, 
my  blood,  in  a  figure ;  or, — This  is,  sym- 
bolically, my  body.' 

But  even  in  "  Evangelical "  circles, 
where  the  bread  and  wine  are  considered 
merely  symbols,  the  idea  lingers  that  they 
are  made  what  they  were  not  before.  This 
shows  itself  in  that  common  term,  '*  the 
consecration  of  the  elements."  Now  in 
what  sense  are  the  bread  and  wine  con- 
secrated when  they  are  declared  symbols 
of  Christ's  body  and  blood?  Were  the 
leaven  and  the  mustard  seed  "  conse- 
crated "  in  any  manner  when  Jesus  pro- 
nounced them  figures  of  divine  things  ? 
When  he  said, — "  I  am  the  vine," — he  did 
not  impart  to  the  vine  any  new  quality 
or  make  it  in  any  way  to  differ  from  what 
it  had  always  been.  How  then  are  the 
bread  and  wine,  when  declared  to  be  sym- 


"  Our  Daily  Bread:*  45 

bols,  made  what  they  were  not  before  ? 
Is  not  this  term,  *'  the  consecration  of  the 
elements,"  merely  a  survival  of  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  ? 

If  a  man  gave  to  his  friend,  say,  an  an- 
cient coin  to  remember  him  by,  this  would 
indeed  undergo  a  change,  the  act  of  the 
giver  imparting  to  it  a  memorial  quality 
which  it  did  not  before  possess.  But  were 
it  his  photograph  which  the  man  presented 
the  case  would  be  different.  The  coin  is  a 
remembrancer  only  by  arbitrary  appoint- 
ment ;  the  portrait,  in  its  original  nature. 
Of  the  coin,  the  giver  says,  "  Let  this  be- 
come a  reminder " ;  of  the  likeness,  he 
says,  *'  This  is  something  which  will 
make  you  think  of  me."  The  coin  is 
given  that  it  may  be  changed  into  a  me- 
morial ;  the  picture,  because  it  has  the 
memorial  quality  already.  Now  the 
bread  and  wine  are  not  arbitrarily  ap- 
pointed remembrancers  ;  they  are  remem- 
brancers by  their  very  nature,  the  loaf 
being  a  figure  of  the  bread  of  heaven  and 
the  wine    an   image    of    Christ's    blood. 


46  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

They  are  not  changed  into  Christ's  body 
and  blood ;  they  are  such  already. 

Till  it  is  clearly  shown,  what  has  never 
been  shown,  that  there  is  indeed  some 
change  wrought  in  or  passed  upon  the 
loaf  on  the  Church  table,  we  must  say 
that  it  is  Christ's  body  not  because  of  any 
change  it  has  undergone  but  by  virtue  of 
its  original  character,  that  it  does  not  be- 
come Christ's  body  but  is  such  by  its 
proper  nature. 

And  now  if  the  words  of  Christ  do  not 
mean, — This  is  my  body  as  a  moment  ago 
it  was  not,— they  cannot  be  construed 
as  meaning, — This  is  my  body  as  other 
bread  is  not.  If  the  loaf  on  the  Church 
table  be  Christ's  body  not  in  virtue  of  a 
change  wrought  in  or  passed  upon  it,  but 
by  reason  of  its  original  character  as  food, 
then  every  other  loaf  is  his  body  just  the 
same,  for  each  other  loaf  possesses  the 
same  character  and  contains  in  itself  the 
same  symbolism. 

When  the  wife  of  the  deacon  or  sac- 
ristan, making  bread    for  her  household 


"  Our  Daily  Breads  47 

takes  out  one  loaf  for  use  in  Church,  at 
what  exact  time  does  that  loaf  become 
Christ's  body  ?  This  loaf  is  borne  to  the 
church  not  that  it  may  be  there  changed 
into  Christ's  body,  but  because  of  the 
fact  that  it  is  such  already,  being  even 
now,  as  material  food,  an  image  of  the 
the  bread  of  heaven.  It  is  the  symbolic 
body  of  Christ  even  now  as  it  still  lies 
among  its  fellow  loaves  and  these  other 
loaves  though  carried  to  the  home  table 
are  Christ's  body  in  just  the  same  sense, 
for  they  also  symbolize  Christ,  the  bread 
of  life. 

The  ancient  coin  which  a  man  gives 
his  friend  as  a  souvenir  is  by  that  act 
made  to  differ  from  all  other  coins  even 
of  the  same  kind.  But  the  photograph 
presented  as  a  remembrancer  is  such  only 
as  is  every  other  photograph  struck  from 
the  same  negative.  Now  the  loaf  on  the 
church  table  has  no  memorial  character 
which  is  not  possessed  by  every  other 
loaf,  and  thus  its  fellow  loaves  are  Christ's 
symbolic  body  as  truly  as  it. 


48  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

Had  Jesus  pointed  to  a  particular  vine 
and  said,  ''  I  am  this  vine  "  ;  we  should 
still  have  understood  him  to  speak  not  of 
that  one  vine  alone  but  of  every  vine,  for 
in  every  vine  resides  the  like  symbolism. 
When  according  to  an  old  time  formula 
the  so-called  "■  consecration  of  the  ele- 
ments" was  cautiously  limited  to  "  so 
much  as  is  needed,"  wherein  was  the 
''  needed  "  portion  made  to  differ  from 
the  unconsecrated  remainder  when  the 
latter  represented  as  truly  as  the  former 
the  bread  of  heaven  and  the  atoning 
blood?  There  is  no  symbolism  in  one 
loaf  which  is  not  found  in  every  loaf 
none  in  one  wine  which  is  not  in  all  wine. 
One  bread  represents  Christ's  body  only 
as  does  every  other  bread.  If  therefore,. 
the,  "This  is,"  means, — This  represents 
— my  body  ;  all  bread  is  Christ  s  body 
as  much  as  any  one  bread.  The  symbolic 
theory  makes  every  loaf  Christ's  body, 
all  wine  his  blood. 

When  St.  Patrick  according  to  legend 
held  up  before  the  people  the  shamrock 


"  Our  Daily  Breads  49 

as  a  symbol  of  the  Trinity,  he  did  not 
then  and  there  make  it  a  symbol  ;  he 
held  it  forth  because  it  was  already  such 
a  symbol.  Nor  did  he  speak  .merely  of 
the  one  sprig  he  then  presented  in  his 
hand.  That  particular  leaf  illustrated 
the  doctrine  only  as  did  every  other  tre- 
foil. He  in  effect  declared  every  sprig 
of  shamrock  an  image  of  the  great 
mystery.  And  so  the  declaration,  "  This 
is  my  body,"  cannot  be  understood  to 
mean  that  the  bread  then  first  becomes 
Christ's  body  ;  nor,  again,  to  refer  to  one 
loaf  as  distinct  from  others.  The  loaf 
represents  Christ's  body  only  as  it  always 
has  done,  and  only  as  does  every  other 
loaf,  the  bread  on  the  home  table  just  as 
fully  as  that  on  the  plates  in  church. 

For  the  manna  in  the  desert  was  not 
less  a  type  of  Christ,  a  "  spiritual  meat," 
because  it  was  the  every  day  food  of  the 
people.  A  genuine  shepherd,  a  man 
actually  guarding  sheep,  would  represent 
Jesus  fully  as  well  as  a  boy  dressed  up 
like    a    shepherd    in    a    Sunday    School 


50  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

tableau.  And  so  the  loaf  of  the  daily 
meal,  eaten  actually  to  sustain  life,  sym- 
bolizes Christ  our  daily  Saviour  and  sup- 
port certainly  as  well  as  a  little  cube  of 
bread  eaten  at  rare  intervals  in  the  mere 
imitation  of  a  meal. 

The  Westminster  Confession  speaks  of 
the  bread  on  the  Church  table  as  "  set 
apart  from  a  common  to  a  holy  use." 
But  the  bread  devoted  to  the  ''  common  " 
use  of  the  support  of  the  body  is  in  fact 
the  only  bread  which  is  truly  capable  of 
the  sacred  use  of  representing  Christ  the 
support  of  the  soul.  For  the  church 
supper  presents  no  symbolism  whatever 
except  as  it  is  assumed  to  be  an  ordinary 
meal.  The  church  bread  does  not  repre- 
sent Christ,  is  not  his  body  at  all,  except 
as  it  purports  to  be  *'  daily  "  bread.  It  is 
the  bread  to  which  one  sits  down  faint 
and  hungry  which  is  the  true  likeness  of 
the  bread  of  heaven,  the  food  so  much 
and  so  continually  needed  by  our  starv- 
ing, perishing  souls.  It  is  in  fact  only  the 
bread  of  the  daily  meal,  eaten  actually  to 


''  Our  Daily  Breads  51 

support  life,  which  truly  represents  and 
thus  ''  is  "  Christ's  body. 

We  have  an  analogous  case  in  the 
washing  of  feet  commanded  by  the  Lord 
"  the  same  night."  The  true  exhibition 
of  Christ-like  humility  is  not  when  pope 
or  kaiser  dramatically  laves  a  poor  man's 
feet  which  have  been  carefully  cleansed 
and  perfumed  beforehand  ;  it  is  when  a 
Sister  Dora  in  the  hospital  washes  the 
noisome  feet  of  a  dying  tramp.  The  foot- 
washing  which  Jesus  ordained  was  the 
washing  of  dirty  feet.  Those  churches 
which  consider  it  their  duty  literally  to 
maintain  the  practice  should  perform  the 
act  on  Saturday  night  when  the  feet  still 
reek  with  the  sweat  of  toil,  for  it  is  a 
solemn  farce  to  defer  the  procedure  till 
Sunday  morning  when  the  real  cleansing 
has  been  already  done.  And  just  as  un- 
reasonably do  they  exalt  form  above  sub- 
stance who  deem  the  bread  of  a  merely 
dramatic  meal  a  better  symbol  of  the 
sustaining  Christ  than  the  food  eaten 
actually  to  support   existence.     As  it   is 


52  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

not  a  pretended  but  a  real  washing  of 
feet  which  displays  humility,  so  it  is  not 
a  pretended  but  a  real  taking  of  food 
which  shows  forth  the  soul's  feeding  on 
Christ. 

When  Paul  says,  *'  As  often  as  ye  eat 
this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  ye  do  shew 
the  Lord's  death  till  he  come,"  (i  Corin- 
thians xi.  26),  we  cannot  understand  him 
to  distinguish  between  "  this  bread  "  and 
other  bread  any  more  than  to  understand 
that  when  Jesus  says,  ''  I  will  not  drink 
henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine," 
he  distinguishes  between  this  and  some 
other  fruit  of  the  vine  which  he  may 
drink.  The  bread  and  cup  of  the  disci- 
ples' daily  meal  served  to  symbolize  and 
**  shew  "  the  Lord  and  his  death  as  fully 
as  did  the  loaf  and  cup  of  their  church 
gatherings.  There  was  no  symbolism  in 
their  church  meals  which  was  not  found 
in  their  daily  repasts.  And  in  like  man- 
ner one  cannot  declare  of  the  bread  on 
the  church  table  of  to-day  that  it  alone 
is  the  body  of  Christ,  for  it  does  not  repre- 


*'  Our  Daily  Breads  53 

sent  Christ  any  more  fully  than  does  the 
loaf  of  the  daily  meal. 

Since  the  words,  *'  This  is  my  body," 
mean, — This  is  my  body  in  a  symbol, 
This  represents  my  body,— and  since  all 
bread  symbolizes  Christ  the  food  of  the 
soul  just  the  same  as  any  one  bread,  then, 
all  bread  is  the  body  of  Christ,  the  loaf 
on  the  cottage-board,  just  as  truly  as  the 
wafer  on  the  high  altar  of  the  cathedral ; 
and  one  wine  is  his  blood  only  as  is  every 
other  wine,  all  blood  of  the  grape  being 
an  image  of  Christ's  blood  shed  for  men. 
Therefore,  whenever  a  disciple  beholds  in 
his  daily  bread  an  image  of  Christ  the 
food  of  his  soul,  that  daily  bread  is  the 
body  of  Christ  just  as  truly  as  is  the  loaf 
of  ecclesiastical  ceremony. 


VII. 

May  One  Disciple  ''Do    This''? 

ON  whom  did  Jesus  lay  the  command, 
"  This  do  ye  "  ?  Taken  by  itself, 
the  injunction  would  apply  indifferently 
to  the  disciples  as  a  body,  or  as  indi- 
viduals. Did  the  Saviour  mean, — Unite 
and  do  this, — or, — This  do  ye  eacJi  one 
of  y oil,  in  company  with  others  or  alone? 

It  has  been  assumed  that  we  have  here 
a  "church  ordinance";  that  the  com- 
mand was  given  to  the  disciples  as  a  cor- 
poration and  therefore  that  the  memorial 
eating  can  be  done  only  by  the  assembled 
congregation,  or  at  least  by  the  authori- 
zation of  the  whole  Church. 

The  Eleven,  however,  to  whom  these 
words  were  addressed  were  not  a  church. 
They  were  not  the  whole  body  of  disci- 
ples even  there  in  Jerusalem.  They  were 
more    like  a  traveling   theological    semi- 


May  One  Disciple  ''Do   This''  ?     55 

nary  than  a  church.  They  were  in  fact 
a  family,  a  group  of  travelers  having  the 
right  under  Jewish  usage  to  act  as  a 
household  for  the  purposes  of  the  paschal 
celebration.  Nor  is  there  any  ground 
for  saying  that  they  *'  represented  the 
church  "  any  more  than  did  the  house- 
hold at  Bethany  or  than  did  any  one  of 
the  many  other  groups  of  believing  Gali- 
lean pilgrims  who  that  night  ate  the 
Passover  in  and  around  Jerusalem.  And 
the  fact  that  the  paschal  feast  like  our 
Thanksgiving  Dinner  was  not  a  public 
and  general,  but  a  family  and  private 
gathering  would  suggest  that  the  new 
memorial  can  be  celebrated  by  a  smaller 
group  than  the  w^iole  church. 

Sometimes  after  a  meeting  of  the 
Evangelical  Alliance  or  on  some  other 
such  occasion  there  is  held  a  "  Union 
Communion  Service."  But  this  is  not  a 
church  gathering.  No  ecclesiastical  body 
authorizes  the  celebration  nor  is  any 
asked  so  to  do.  Those  \\A\o  take  part  in 
it  do  so  merely  as  individual  Christians, 


56  Christ  in  the  Daily  MeaL 

acting  entirely  outside  church  connec- 
tions. It  is  not  an  ecclesiastical  assem- 
blage any  more  than  is  a  prayer  meeting 
in  the  cabin  of  an  ocean  steamer.  Now 
those  who  say  that  the  command  of  Christ 
is  obeyed  when  two  hundred  individual 
Christians  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance 
of  the  Lord,  must  say  that  it  will  be  just 
as  truly  obeyed  if  only  two  do  this  or 
when  a  disciple  alone  by  himself  breaks 
bread  in  remembrance  of  the  Saviour. 

Among  the  Baptists  there  are  many 
who  declare  that  the  memorial  eating 
cannot  properly  be  observed  at  the  meet- 
ing of  an  Association  or  at  any  other 
general  gathering  but  only  by  a  local 
congregation.  Even  these,  however,  will 
admit  that  it  may  take  place  in  the  cham- 
ber of  the  sick  provided  the  occasion  be 
a  church  meeting  formally  appointed. 
But  surely  it  is  a  piece  of  ecclesiastical 
pettifogging  to  call  that  a  church  assem- 
bly from  which  it  is  intended  that  the 
church  members  with  two  or  three  ex- 
ceptions shall  all  stay  away. 


May  One  Disciple '' Do   This''?     $7 

It  is  true  that  the  Master  uses  the 
plural  form,  ''  This  do  ye."  But  so  does 
he  in,  *' Ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also 
in  me," — "Abide  in  me  and  I  in  you," 
— "  Hitherto  ye  have  asked  nothing  in 
my  name  ;  ask  and  ye  shall  receive,  that 
your  joy  may  be  full," — injunctions  given 
at  the  same  sitting  and  in  which  he  is 
certainly  addressing  the  disciples  not  as  a 
corporation  but  as  individuals.  Now  re- 
membrance of  Christ  is  an  individual  act 
as  truly  as  believing  in  Christ,  abiding 
in  him  or  asking  in  his  name,  and  we 
must  say  therefore  that  if  a  disciple,  sit- 
ting down  alone  by  himself,  eats  and 
drinks  in  remembrance  of  the  Saviour  he 
obeys  this  memorial  ordinance  just  as  fully 
as  if  he  ate  and  drank  in  the  great  con- 
gregation. 

Whether  a  command  addressed  to  a 
plurality  of  persons  is  intended  for  them 
as  a  company  or  as  individuals  may  be 
determined  by  the  nature  of  the  injunc- 
tion. If  a  minister  called  on  his  congre- 
gation to  arise  and  build  a  new  house  of 


58  CJirist  ill  the  Daily  Meal. 

worship,  we  should  understand  that  they 
were  to  act  as  a  body.  If,  however,  he 
demanded  of  them  to  be  prayerful,  or  to 
love  their  enemies,  we  should  regard  him 
as  addressing  them  individually.  Now 
remembrance  of  Christ,  like  faith  in  Christ, 
is  the  act  not  of  a  corporation  but  of  a 
single  person,  and  a  command  therefor 
must  be  regarded  as  contemplating  indi- 
vidual action. 

A  Christian  Robinson  Crusoe,  a  lone 
missionary  like  Livingstone,  the  one  pious 
sailor  on  board  ship  or  the  single  devout 
traveler  in  the  caravan  would  need  to 
remember  Christ,  and  why  should  he  not 
do  this  in  the  bearking  of  bread  ?  Is 
there  not  as  much  reason  for  his  so  doing 
in  his  loneliness  as  there  would  be  had  he 
a  thousand  to  join  him  ?  The  command, 
"Believe  in  me,"  or,  ''Abide  in  me," 
would  be  given  all  the  same  were  there 
but  one  disciple  in  the  world,  and  why  is 
it  not  the  same  with  the  injunction, 
''This  do  ye  in  remembrance  of  me"? 
Why  should  not  any  disciple  at  any  time 


May  One  Disciple  "  Do   This  "  f     59 

break  bread  even  alone  in  remembrance 
of  his  Lord  ? 

Tl:iere  are  many  Baptists  who  in  defend- 
ing the  usage  of  restricted  communion 
declare  that  in  taking  the  bread  and  wine 
the  disciple  communes  not  with  his  fellow 
disciples  but  with  Christ  alone.  If,  how- 
ever, the  sole  parties  to  the  transaction 
are  the  individual  believer  and  Christ 
why  is  it  necessary  that  other  disciples  be 
present?  A  man  can  certainly  commune 
with  Christ  at  home  by  himself  alone  as 
well  as  in  the  church  assembly. 

It  will  of  course  be  granted  that  as  the 
Christian  delights  to  pray  in  company 
with  his  brethren  and  to  join  his  voice 
with  theirs  in  singing  praise  to  the 
Redeemer,  so  he  will  take  pleasure  in 
sitting  down  with  them  to  eat  bread  in 
remembrance  of  their  common  Lord. 
But  the  breaking  of  bread  is  not  solely  a 
church  ordinance  any  more  than  prayer 
or  praise,  in  which  a  man  can  engage 
alone  by  himself  as  well  as  in  company 
with  the  whole  church,  and  the  disciple 


6o  Clu'ist  i?i  the  Daily  Meal. 

who  is  isolated  from  his  brethren  is  not 
**  deprived  of  the  privilege  "  of  a  memo- 
rial feast  any  more  than  of  the  enjoyment 
of  singing  or  prayinj. 

The  words,  '*  This  do  ye,*'  do  not 
necessarily  mean, — Assemble  and  do  this. 
The  idea  that  the  memorial  breaking  of 
bread  can  lawfully  be  observed  only  in 
ecclesiastical  connection  has  no  basis 
whatever  in  the  New  Testament  nor  in 
sound  .  reason.  One  needs  no  Church 
warrant  for  remembering  the  Lord  in  the 
breaking  of  bread  any  more  than  for  any 
other  Christian  exercise.  One  can  eat 
and  drink  in  remembrance  of  Christ  alone 
by  himself  and  on  his  own  authority  as 
freely  as  he  can  sing  praise  by  himself 
alone.  As  the  command,  "After  this 
manner  pray  ye,"  is  observed  when  a 
single  disciple  kneels  down  and  says, 
"Thy  kingdom  come,"  so  if  a  believer 
eats  and  drinks  in  his  own  home  in  re- 
membrance of  his  Saviour,  he  obeys  the 
command,  "  This  do  ye,"  just  as  truly 
as  when  he  goes  to  the  house  of  God 
with  the  multitude  to  keep  holy  day. 


VIII. 

What   did   Christ   Mean  by,     ''As 
Oft  As—  ? 

THE  Lord's  command  is — Eat,  drink, 
in  remembrance  of  me.  And  this 
is  the  whole  of  his  command.  There  is 
no  ground  in  Scripture  for  the  traditional 
idea  that  he  orders  not  only  an  eating  and 
drinking  ''  in  remembrance  "  but  also 
that  this  be  done  apart  from  other  eat- 
ing and  for  memorial  purposes  alone. 

One  repast  may  serve  two  ends.  As 
the  table  which  is  spread  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  hunger  may  also  be  used  in  the  cul- 
tivation of  friendship  with  neighbors,  so 
the  bread  and  wine  taken  by  the  disciples 
in  support  and  refreshment  of  the  body 
could  be  also  made  remembrancers  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood.  Thus  the  com- 
mand to  them  to  eat  and  drink  in  remem- 
brance of  the  Master  was  not  necessarily  a 


62  CJirist  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

command  for  a  separate  meal.  That  they 
should  fully  and  completely  carry  out 
the  injunction,  all  that  was  required  was 
that  they  should  eat  their  daily  bread  in 
memory  of  Christ,  the  bread  of  heaven, 
and  make  their  daily  cup  a  reminder  of 
the  blood  of  Christ,  of  which  that  wine 
was  an  image. 

The  Passover  Supper  was  not  solely 
memorial  in  character.  Like  our  Thanks- 
giving dinner  or  the  collation  at  a  Col- 
lege Commencement  it  served  as  one  of 
the  ordinary  meals  of  the  day.  The 
command  establishing  it  was  simply  that 
on  that  notable  day  the  food  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  body  should  be  a  lamb,  etc., 
which  would  serve  also  a  historical  pur- 
pose. Why  then  may  not  the  Christian 
memorial  eating  be  done  in  the  daily 
meal  ?  Since  the  Passover  feast  was  an 
actual  supper,  why  may  not  the  new  re- 
membrance be  made  in  a  true  repast. 

We  have  already  seen  (p.  14)  that  it 
was  a  paschal  loaf  which  Jesus  bade  them 
eat,  a  paschal  cup  which  he  bade  them 


''As  Oft  As—''  63 

drink,  as  symbols  of  his  body  and  blood. 
To  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  ancient  me- 
morial he  gave  an  additional  meaning. 
But  if  the  loaf  and  cup  of  the  Saviour's 
last  Passover  could  serve  a  double  pur- 
pose, if  remembrance  of  Christ  could  be 
made  in  the  paschal  meal,  why  cannot 
also  the  daily  repast  subserve  a  two-fold 
end,  reminding  of  Christ  while  supporting 
the  body  ? 

Had  Jesus  intended  a  special  meal  Hke 
the  ancient  Passover  would  he  not  have 
appointed  for  it  special  articles  of  food 
like  the  lamb  and  the  bitter  herbs  of  the 
paschal  feast?  But  the  materials  or- 
dained for  the  new  memorial  were  simply 
the  bread  and  wine  of  the  every  day 
meal.  Now  if  the  memorial  eating  was 
to  differ  from  the  ordinary  eating  in  no 
respect  whatever  in  its  outward  acts, 
what  ground  is  there  for  saying  that  it 
was  to  differ  therefrom  in  time? 

What  did  Jesus  tell  the  disciples  to  do 
in  remembrance  of  him  ?  He  told  them 
to  do  only  what  they  were  already  doing 


64  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

every  day,  namely,  to  eat  bread  and  drink 
wine.  He  appointed  nothing  new  to  be 
eaten  and  drunk,  but  merely  a  new 
thought  in  eating  and  drinking  what  they 
now  ate  and  drank.  All  that  was  neces- 
sary to  change  the  old  meal  into  the  new 
was  to  bring  into  it  a  remembrance  of 
Christ.  When  once  the  new  thought  was 
introduced  the  daily  supper  became  the 
required  memorial  feast. 

Let  us  ask, —  Would  it  be  allowable 
for  a  disciple  of  to-day  to  behold  in  his 
daily  loaf  a  symbol  of  Christ  the  bread  of 
heaven  and  to  eat  this  "  in  remembrance 
of"  the  Bread  of  Life  1  Please  stop  and 
answer.  But  if  the  disciple  did  this 
would  he  not  do  all  that  we  do  when  we 
eat  of  the  loaf  in  church  ?  Wherein 
would  an  eating  of  the  daily  meal  "  in  re- 
membrance  "  fall  short  of  the  breaking  of 
bread  in  church  ?  And  what  occasion  was 
there  for  the  Master  to  institute  for  the 
disciples  a  new  and  separate  meal  when 
the  loaf  and  cup  of  their  daily  repast  gave 
all  the  symbolism  needed  for  a  memorial  ? 


^*As  Oft  As—"  65 

Though  the  declaration,  "  This  is  my 
body,"  and  the  command,  "This  do  in 
remembrance  of  me,"  do  not  stand  in 
the  Gospels  in  immediate  connection,  yet 
each  implies  the  other.  Taken  together, 
their  meaning  is, — Forasmuch  as  this 
bread  is,  in  a  symbol,  my  body  let  it  re- 
mind you  of  me.  Now  what  bread  is  it 
that,  is  in  a  figure,  Christ's  body?  It  is 
(p.  50)  the  bread  which  is  eaten  to  satisfy 
hunger.  A  loaf  eaten  for  a  memorial 
purpose  alone  would  in  fact  not  be  a 
memorial.  The  loaf  which  is  not  eaten 
to  satisfy  hunger  is  not  Christ's  symbolic 
body  at  all.  The  bread  on  the  Church 
table  is  a  figure  of  Christ's  body  only  as 
we  assume  the  Church  supper  to  be  an 
ordinary  meal  eaten  to  sustain  the  physi- 
cal nature.  It  is  only  the  bread  eaten  to 
support  the  natural  life  which  is  a  true 
image  of  Christ  the  food  of  the  spiritual 
life.  Therefore  it  cannot  be  a  special 
bread  which  the  Lord  appoints  as  a  re- 
minder of  himself,  but  only  the  loaf  of  the 
ordinary  meal. 


66  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

If,  as  the  Roman  Catholics  affirm,  it 
were  only  the  transubstantiated  wafer 
that  is  Christ's  true  body,  then  the  sacred 
eating  could  be  done  only  apart  from  the 
daily  meal,  for  such  bread  is  not  found  on 
the  home  table.  But  if  it  be  symboli- 
cally that  the  bread  is  Christ's  body,  then 
the  loaf  of  the  daily  meal  is  material  for 
the  memorial  eating,  for  it  symbolizes  the 
bread  of  heaven,  Christ  our  daily  Saviour, 
as  well  as,  not  to  say  better  than,  the 
bread  of  a  purely  ceremonial  repast. 

That  the  Master  did  not  intend  to  es- 
tablish a  special  eating  and  drinking,  one 
for  memorial  purposes  only,  is  seen — is 
it  not? — in  the  words, — "As  oft  as," — 
which  though  given  only  in  the  command 
regarding  the  cup  must  be  understood  in 
regard  to  the  bread  also. 

If  a  man  receives  the  injunction, — As 
often  as  you  go  to  the  city,  buy  some- 
thing for  those  at  home, — the  direction 
is  not  that  he  shall  go  to  the  city  for  that 
purpose  but  that  when  going  to  do  other 
things  he  shall  do  this  also.     So  the  direc- 


''As  Oft  As—''  6y 

tion,  "  As  oft  as  ye  [eat  and]  drink,  do 
this  in  remembrance  of  me,"  commands 
that  the  eating  and  drinking  in  support  ' 
and  refreshment  of  the  body  be  also  "  in 
remembrance."  The  thing  enjoined  is 
not  a  new  eating  but  a  new  thought  in 
the  accustomed  eating.  It  is  in  fact  not 
the  eating  and  drinking,  but  only  the  re- 
membrance, that  is  commanded. 

To  make  the,  *' As  oft  as,"  refer  only 
to  a  particular  wine,  drunk  for  memorial 
purposes  alone,  would  be  to  construe  the 
command  as, — This  particular  cup  which 
I  command  you  to  drink  in  remembrance 
of  me,  I  command  you  to  drink  in  re- 
membrance of  me  ;  or, — As  oft  as  ye 
drink  in  remembrance  of  me,  drink  in 
remembrance  of  me  : — a  construction 
which  is  absurd.  The  only  reasonable 
paraphrase  of  the  Saviour's  words  is, — As 
oft  as  ye  drink  with  other  thoughts, 
drink  at  the  same  time  in  remembrance 
of  me.  It  would  not  be  possible  to  put 
in  plainer  words  the  injunction  that  the 
red  wine  of  their  daily  meals  should  be 


68  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

made  a  reminder  of  his  shed  blood.  Had 
he  actually  intended  to  command  that 
every  cup  should  have  a  memorial  pur- 
pose, in  what  clearer  terms  could  he  have 
couched  that  command  than  this,  ''As 
oft  as  ye  drink,  do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me  "  ? 

The  current  idea  is  that  Jesus  said, — 
Ye  shall  eat  in  remembrance  of  me  now 
and  then;  ye  shall  drink  in  remembrance 
of  me  once  in  the  while.  But  these  limita- 
tions are  not  expressed  in  the  wording  of 
his  command  nor  are  they  suggested  by 
the  nature  of  the  case. 

The  question  how  often  a  thing  is  to 
be  done,  may  be  determined  by  inquiring 
how  often  it  may  profitably  be  done. 
How  often  were  the  disciples  to  "  con- 
sider the  lilies"  and  "behold  the  fowls 
of  the  air"?  As  often  as  they  needed 
reminding  of  God's  providential  care, 
And  now  how  often  does  the  disciple 
need  to  remember  Christ?  Once  a 
month?  Once  a  week?  Why  should 
he  not  every  time  he  takes  food  for  the 


''As  Oft  As—''  69 

body  think  of  Christ,  the  food  of  the  soul  ? 
Jesus  terms  the  wine  his  "  blood  of 
the  covenant."  When  Jehovah  made  a 
covenant  with  ancient  Israel,  he  promis- 
ing to  be  their  protector  and  they  en- 
gaging to  be  his  servants,  that  sacred 
agreement  was  sealed  with  the  blood  of 
a  slain  victim  (Exodus  xxiv.  8).  And 
now  the  disciples  have  made  a  new  cove- 
nant with  the  Father,  (Jeremiah  xxxi.  31), 
not  national  but  personal,  of  which  sacred 
compact  the  blood  of  their  Master  is  to 
be  the  seal  and  witness.  In  that  Eastern 
country  the  red  juice  of  the  grape  was 
the  drink  of  the  daily  meal,  thus  present- 
ing continually  an  impressive  reminder  of 
the  blood  of  the  Redeemer,  serving  daily 
to  "  shew "  his  death.  And  the  Lord 
says  to  them, — Whenever  ye  take  in 
your  hands  your  daily  cup  of  the  blood 
of  the  grape  let  it  recall  to  your  minds 
my  blood  shed  for  you,  and  your  solemn 
compact  with  the  Father,  of  which  my 
blood  is  to  be  the  witness.  Thus  were 
they  at  every  meal  to  renew  their  cove- 


70  CJirist  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

nant  with  the  Father,  daily  and  contin- 
ually reminding  themselves  of  their  Lord's 
death  till  he  should  come. 

The  memorial  eating  then  is  not  a 
"  ceremony."  It  is  not  like  baptism, 
which  involves  an  act  and  words  that 
might  not  be  done  and  said  without 
special  direction  ;  nor  is  it  like  the  Pass- 
over, in  which  were  articles  of  food  that 
might  not  have  been  prepared  without 
specific  injunction.  The  disciples  always 
ate  bread  and  drank  wine,  and  needed  no 
additional  command  so  to  do.  The  be- 
liever's eating  and  drinking  in  remem- 
brance of  Christ  was  to  be  in  outward  act 
just  the  same  as  a  worldly  man's  eating 
and  drinking.  The  new  supper  involved 
no  peculiar  act  ;  it  was  merely  a  custom- 
ary act  done  with  new  thoughts.  As  it 
was  not  a  new  bow  in  the  cloud  but  the 
old  familiar  arch  which  God  made  a 
memorial  in  the  days  of  Noah,  so  it  was 
not  a  new  meal  but  the  ordinary  repast 
which  Jesus  made  a  remembrancer;  arid 
in   the  remembrance  there  is  no  more  of 


''As  Oft  As—"  71 

"  ceremony  "  than  in  looking  at  the 
rainbow  or  considering  the  lilies  or  be- 
holding the  fowls  of  the  air.  In  the 
memorial  eating  which  Christ  ordained 
there  is  no  element  whatever  of  ritual  ; 
its  characteristics  are  purely  spiritual. 

It  may  be  remarked  that  the  words, 
*'  Do  this,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,"  contain 
no  command  to  drink  wine.  The  injunc- 
tion,—  As  often  as  you  go  to  the  city,  buy 
something  for  the  children, — would  not 
be  a  command  to  go  to  the  city.  And  so 
in  the  Saviour's  words  before  us  there  is 
no  command  to  drink  wine  but  only  to 
remember  him. 

Nor  is  there  a  true  command  in  the, 
''  Drink,  all  ye,  of  it "  (Matthew  xxvi. 
26).  Of  course  they  would  all  drink  of 
the  Passover  cup  and  no  command  so  to 
do  was  needed.  The  meaning  of  Jesus' 
words  is  simply, — Yes,  drink  all  ye  of  it  ; 
or,— Well  may  ye  all  drink  of  it  ;  for  it 
is  my  blood  of  the  covenant.  Though 
the  clause  is  imperative  in  form  it  is  in 
its  significance  merely  approbative. 


72  Christ  i?i  the  Daily  Meal. 

Among  the  ''many  thousands"  of  be- 
lieving Jews  who  were  "  all  zealous  of  the 
law  "  there  was  not  unlikely  many  a  Naza- 
rite  like  John  the  Baptist.  This  is  sug- 
gested by  the  passages,  "  Having  shorn 
his  head  in  Cenchrea,  for  he  had  a  vow  " 
(Acts  xviii.  1 8),  and,  "  We  have  four 
men  which  have  a  vow  on  them  "  (xxi.  23). 
Now  a  believing  Nazarite  would  not  have 
been  required  by  these  words  of  Jesus  to 
cease  from  his  determination  to  "  drink 
neither  wine  nor  strong  drink,"  nor 
does  this  injunction  require  the  drinking 
of  wine  by  a  disciple  of  to-day  who  pre- 
fers to  abstain  from  it.  The  words  of 
Jesus  were  addressed  to  those  who  were 
in  the  habit  of  drinking  wine  at  their 
meals  as  we  drink  tea  and  coffee,  and  his 
injunction  is  not  that  they  shall  continue 
so  to  do  but  that  in  doing  it  they  shall 
remember  him.  As  to  the  man  not  drink- 
ing wine,  whether  ancient  Nazarite  or 
modern  abstainer,  he  is  left  to  make  his 
remembrance  in  some  other  way,  as  in 
rainless  countries  something  else  than  the 


*'As  Oft  As—''  73 

*'  bow  in  the  cloud  "  must  serve  as  a  me- 
morial concerning  the  flood. 

In  concluding  this  chapter,  it  may  be 
remarked  that  in  the  Lord's,  *'  As  oft  as 
ye  [eat  and]  drink,  [even  in  your  daily 
meals],  do  it  in  remembrance  of  me," 
we  have  something  more  than  the  direc- 
tion that  whatever  we  do  shall  be  done 
to  the  glory  of  God.  We  have  a  special 
injunction  that  every  meal  shall  be  eaten 
in  the  "  gladness "  of  a  special  remem- 
brance of  Christ  and  his  redeeming  love. 


IX. 

Apostolic  Precedent, 

THE  traditional  understanding  of 
Jesus'  words  is, — This  is  my  body, 
my  blood,  ^j"  anotJiei'  loaf  or  cup  is  not  ; 
eat,  drink,  in  chnrch  assembly,  in  remem- 
brance of  me,  and  for  a  mcjuoriat 
purpose  only.  But  the  findings  in  the 
preceding  pages  are  that  the  words  in 
italics  are  no  part  of  the  Lord's  instruc- 
tions, that  they  are  utterly  unwarranted 
interpolations. 

We  have  come  to  the  position  that  the 
bread  and  wine  which  are  Christ's  body 
and  blood  on  the  church  table  were  such 
in  the  same  sense  before  they  came  to 
the  table  ;  and  that  such  are  all  bread  and 
wine,  all  food  of  the  body  being  sym- 
bolic of  Christ  the  bread  of  heaven,  all 
wine  an  image  of  his  blood.  It  is,  more- 
over,   the  individual   believer,   primarily, 


Apostolic  Precedent.  75 

that  is  bidden  to  eat  and  drink  in  remem- 
brance of  the  Master.  And  finally  the 
disciple  is  commanded  to  do  this  not 
merely  now  and  then,  but  whenever  he 
eats  and  drinks,  even  in  his  daily  repast. 

And  now  as  we  turn  to  Apostolic  his- 
tory in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  we  find  no 
breaking  of  bread  apart  from  an  actual 
meal.  For  a  supper  consisting  of  but  a 
morsel  of  bread  and  one  swallow  of  wine, 
there  is  no  more  precedent  in  Scripture 
than  for  kneeling  at  a  rail  to  eat.  And, 
again,  though  memorial  eating  was  done 
in  church  assemblies,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  record  which  even  remotely  indicates 
that  it  was  confined  to  them. 

In  Acts  ii.  46,  (Rev.  Vers.)  we  read  of 
the  disciples  at  Jerusalem  that  "breaking 
bread  at  home,  they  did  take  their  food 
w^ith  gladness."  This  particular  break- 
ing of  bread  was  certainly  the  ordinary 
meal.  All  must  agree  with  the  Rev. 
Wm.  Arnot  of  Edinburgh  when  in  ''The 
Church  in  the  House,'*  he  says  on  this 
passage: — "It  is    not  the  religious  ordi- 


;6  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

nance  but  the  common  meal  that  is  signal- 
ized as  having  been  simple  and  joyful." 
But  why  should  *'  gladness "  mark  the 
taking  of  their  food  more  than  the  other 
acts  of  the  daily  routine  of  their  lives? 
Was  it  not  because  the  Lord  had  com- 
manded that  each  daily  repast  should  be 
a  memorial  occasion,  and  that  thus  they 
made  each  home  meal  a  festal  hour,  a 
time  of  solemn  joy  ? 

In  verse  42,  we  read  that  *'  they  con- 
tinued *  ^  *  in  the  breaking  of  bread." 
This  implies  of  course,  that  they  remem- 
bered Christ  in  the  breaking  of  bread. 
It  is  generally  assumed  that  they  did 
this  in  gatherings  of  the  church  members  ; 
but,  be  this  as  it  may,  we  must  consider 
that  this  eating,  like  the  breaking  of 
bread  at  Emmaus,  (Luke  xxiv.  45),  and 
that  mentioned  in  verse  46,  was  an  actual 
meal,  not  merely  a  pretended  repast. 

Alford  says  that  to  render  the  break- 
ing of  bread  in  verse  42  ''  to  mean  the 
breaking  of  bread  in  the  Eucharist  as 
now  tinderstood  would  be  to  violate  his- 


Apostolic  Precedent.  77 

torical  truth.  The  Holy  Communion 
was  at  first  and  for  some  time  -^  ^  *  in- 
separably connected  with  the  agapae  or 
love-feasts  of  the  Christians,  and  unknown 
as  a  separate  ordinance.'''     (Italics  his.) 

Meyer  on  this  passage  says  that  the 
modern  Eucharist  '*  is  of  later  origin  ;  the 
separation  of  the  Lord's  supper  from  the 
joint  evening  meal  did  not  take  place  at 
all  in  the  Apostolic  Church." 

Says  Schaff  {Hist.  Christian  Church 
I.  ^7j)  .-  *'  In  the  apostolic  period  the  Eu- 
charist was  celebrated  daily  in  connection 
with  a  simple  meal  of  brotherly  love." 

Says  Hase,  {Hist.  Christian  Church  Sec. 
^jf. :)  "■  The  love-feast,  in  which  were  com- 
bined the  ordinary  meal  and  the  religious 
service  of  the  primitive  Christians,  was 
originally  celebrated  in  Jerusalem  every 
day." 

Says  Stanley  {Christian  Institutions,  p. 
44):  ''In  the  Acts,  the  believers  at  Je- 
rusalem are  described  as  partaking  of  a 
daily  meal." 

Says  McGiffert  {History  of  Christianity 


78  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

in  the  Apostolic  Age)  :  ''  That  the  disci- 
ples held  a  special  service  and  partook  of 
a  special  communion  meal,  there  is  no 
sign.  It  is  far  more  likel}^  that  whenever 
they  ate  together  they  ate  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Not  that  it  preceded  or  fol- 
lowed the  ordinary  meal  but  that  the 
whole  meal  was  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  that 
they  partook  of  no  ordinar\%  secular,  un- 
holy meals,  of  none  that  was  not  a  Kvptanbv 

delTTVOv.^* 

The  late  President  Robinson  of  Brown 
University,  in  some  remarks  at  a  dinner 
of  the  Baptist  Social  Union,  spoke  of 
such  a  repast  by  assembled  Christian 
brethren  as  reproducing  perhaps  more 
completely  than  awything  else  we  have 
to-day  the  religious  meal  of  the  Apostolic 
churches. 

As  to  the  declaration  that  there  was  a 
purely  ritual  supper,  c-aten  at  tkc  same 
sitting  but  yet  apart -from  the  love-feast, 
preceding  or  following  it,  we  may  say 
that  this  idea  of  two  distinct  meals  has 
not  the  least  support  in  the  text.     It  is 


Apostolic  Precedent.  79 

*' eisegesis "  pure  and  simple,  a  mere 
fancy  which  finds  no  basis  whatever  in 
the  evidence.  The  record  puts  before 
us  but  one  breaking  of  bread,  and  that 
not  a  fictitious  but  a  genuine  repast. 
The  same  remark  may.be  made  of  the 
accounts  of  the  church  meals  at  Troas 
and  Corinth. 

In  the  account  of  Paul's  visit  to  Troas 
(Acts  xx)  it  is  recorded :  "  And  upon 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  *  *  we  were 
gathered  together  to  break  bread."  Here 
we  certainly  have  a  church  supper.  But 
we  must  also  assume  that  here  as  at 
Emmaus  and  on  Paul's  vessel,  the  break- 
ing of  bread  was  an  actual  repast.  The 
statement  of  the  text  is  therefore  that 
the  brethren  assembled  to  eat  a  meal 
in  company.  Lechler,  {Lajiges  Coin), 
calls  it  ''  a  meal  of  brotherly  fellowship." 
It  was  an  agape  or  *' love-feast."  In  it, 
of  course,  they  remembered  Christ,  the 
food  of  their  souls. 

The  only  mention  of  actual  eating  is, 
''When    [Paul]    was   gone    up,   and   had 


8o  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

broken  the  bread,  and  eaten,  and  had 
talked  with  them  a  long  while,  even  till 
break  of  day,  so  he  departed."  Whether 
the  apostle's  eating  was  or  was  not  in  the 
breaking  of  bread  of  verse  7,  it  looks  like  a 
taking  of  food  to  refresh  himself  after  his 
long  discourse  and  to  strengthen  him  for 
his  journey.  This  also  would  be  indicated 
by  the  yevadjuevoc  of  the  original,  the  word 
used  in  Acts  x.  10  where  Peter  on  the 
housetop  "  became  hungry  and  desired  to 
eat.*'  Nowhere  in  the  text  is  there  any 
suggestion  of  a  purely  ceremonial  eating, 
the  mere  imitation  of  a  meal. 

The  fact  that  this  breaking  of  bread  at 
Troaswas  at  a  church  gathering  has  been 
cited  to  prove  that  the  breaking  of  bread 
is  5^/^/^  a  church  ordinance.  But  it  shows 
no  such  thing,  any  more  than  the  holding 
of  a  church  prayer-meeting  or  praise- 
service  would  show  that  the  members 
did  not  pray  or  sing  except  in  church 
assembly.  Disciples  who  sing  and  pray 
by  themselves  will  also  find  pleasure  in 
assembling  to  pray  and  sing  to  Christ,  and 


Apostolic  Precedent.  8 1 

so  those  who  remember  Christ  in  the 
breaking  of  bread  at  home  will  be  moved 
to  assemble  to  break  bread  in  united  re- 
membrance of  him.  But  the  fact  that 
the  brethren  at  Troas  *' came  together" 
to  break  bread  does  not  show  that  the 
breaking  of  bread  is  solely  a  church  or- 
dinance any  more  than  is  praise  or  prayer. 


X. 

Unio7i  with  Christ, 

THE  breaking  of  bread  is  mentioned 
in  the  tenth  chapter  of  First  Corin- 
thians. The  apostle  bids  the  disciples 
flee  from  idolatry  and  also  to  be  cautious 
about  eating  meat  which  has  been  conse- 
crated to  idols.  He  acknowledges  that  a 
heathen  deity  is  only  an  imaginary  being 
and  that  the  flesh  of  an  animal  sacrificed 
to  one  of  these  false  gods  is  not  affected 
thereby  ;  wherefore  if  a  believer  in  Jesus, 
going  into  the  market  to  buy  meat  for 
his  household,  finds  a  desirable  piece,  he 
need  not  raise  the  question  whether  it  has 
not  been  cut  from  a  sacrificed  animal ; 
and  in  dining  with  a  heathen  neighbor,  if 
he  thinks  it  well  so  to  do,  he  need  not  be 
troubled  at  the  possibility  that  some  of 
the  food  on  the  table  has  been  dedicated 
to  idol  gods. 


Union  with  Christ,  83 

But  if  it  be  expressly  pointed  out  to 
him  that  a  given  piece  of  meat  has  been 
consecrated  to  a  heathen  deity  and  in 
eating  thereof  he  might  seem  to  unite  in 
the  respect  paid  this  false  god,  the  case 
is  somewhat  different.  He  who  eats  in 
honor  of  a  given  deity  joins  himself  to 
that  deity  and  becomes  partaker  of  the 
nature  of  that  deity.  When  the  believer 
in  Jesus  breaks  bread  and  drinks  the  cup 
in  remembrance  and  worship  of  Christ 
he  becomes  a  partaker  of  the  body  and 
blood — that  is,  of  the  nature — of  Christ, 
entering  into  union  with  him.  When  the 
ancient  Israelite  ate  of  the  sacrifice  to 
Jehovah  he  entered  into  union  with  Je- 
hovah. But  what  the  heathen  sacrifice 
they  sacrifice  to  demons,  and  the  ser- 
vant of  Jesus  in  eating  of  these  sacrifices 
will  be  entering  into  a  participation 
in  the  nature  of  demons,  a  union  with 
demons,  which  he  would  not  have  them 
do. 

In  this  passage  as  in  the  others  ex- 
amined there  is  nothing  to  suggest  that 


84  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

the  bread  and  cup  were  merely  ceremo- 
nial, not  parts  of  an  actual  meal.  On  the 
other  hand  since  the  feast  at  an  idol  sac- 
rifice was  an  actual  feast,  and  when  the 
Israelite  ate  of  the  sacrifice  to  Jehovah 
he  ate  an  actual  meal,  it  is  more  natural 
to  understand  that  the  communion  with 
Christ,  which  is  compared  to  these,  was 
in  an  actual  taking  of  food. 

Nor  do  we  find  here  any  necessary  ref- 
erence to  a  church  supper  as  distinguished 
from  a  household  meal.  The  term  "  cup 
of  blessing  "  Avas  a  common  one  for  the 
third  cup  of  the  paschal  supper,  which 
as  has  been  remarked  was  not  a  public 
and  general  but  a  household  meal,  and  it 
would  apply  also  to  the  daily  cup  on 
which  was  asked  the  divine  blessing.  In 
like  manner  the  words  "  the  bread  which 
we  break "  may  refer  here  as  it  does  in 
many  cases  elsewhere  to  the  bread  of  the 
private  meal.  Moreover,  the  fact  that 
directions  are  given  regarding  the  pur- 
chase in  the  shambles  of  meat  for  the 
home    table,    and    that    the  feast  at  the 


Uiiioji  with  CJirist.  85 

house  of  the  heathen  friend  is  a  priv- 
ate feast,  shows  that  communing  with 
demons  in  eating  meat  offered  to  idols 
could  be  done  in  the  ordinary  meal,  and 
this  again  implies  that  a  communion 
with  Christ  could  also  be  eaten  at  the 
home  table. 

As  to  the  words  (Rev.  Vers.), — *'  See- 
ing that  we,  who  are  many,  are  one  bread, 
one  body  [ijiargin,  '  seeing  that  there  is 
one  bread,  we,  who  are  many,  are  one 
body '  ]  :  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one 
bread  \inargin,  *  loaf ']," — it  is  too  broad  to 
refer  to  the  local  church.  The  Oriental 
*' loaf  "was  but  a  little  cake,  so  that  to 
partake  of  "  one  "  loaf  would  be  impossi- 
ble for  all  the  members  of  the  large 
church  at  Corinth.  Again  the  '  we  "  in- 
cludes the  apostle  himself,  who  was  not  a 
member  of  that  local  church  but  was  now 
far  separated  from  them.  We  must  un 
derstand  therefore,  w^th  Edwards,  that 
017:07.101  are  not  the  assembled  ''many" 
but  the  scattered  believers  throughout  the 
whole  world,  who    by  union    with    their 


86  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

common  Lord  are  united  to  each  other. 
As  in  praying,  each  one  by  himself, 

"  Though  sundered  far.  by  faith  we  meet 
Around  one  common  mercy  seat  "  ; 

so  in  remembering  Christ,  each  one  by 
himself,  in  the  breaking  of  bread,  widely 
separated  Christians  are  brought  together 
into  "  one  body."  There  is  no  necessary 
reference  to  a  local  church  assemblage. 

When  the  apostle  says,  **  Ye  cannot 
drink  a  cup  of  the  Lord  and  a  cup  of 
demons  ;  ye  cannot  partake  of  a  table  of 
the  Lord  and  a  table  of  demons," — (the 
original  is  not  tJie  table,  tJic  cup,  but  a), — 
it  impairs  the  force  of  the  solemn  words 
to  make  them  refer  merely  to  a  church 
ceremony.  He  does  not  mean  that  a 
man  cannot  take  part  in  a  Christian  rite 
to-day  and  a  heathen  festival  to-morrow; 
that  alas  is  too  often  done.  His  assertion 
is  that  we  cannot  make  one  and  the 
same  feast  a  table  of  the  Lord  and  a 
table  of  demons  ;  that  one  cannot  drink 
his  cup  in  communion  with  Christ  and  in 


Union  with  Christ.  87 

communion  with  demons  at  the  same 
time.  And  if  we  understand  the  com- 
mand for  a  holy  supper  to  be  that  each 
meal  is  to  be  eaten  in  remembrance  of 
Christ,  the  food  of  the  soul,  and  so  in 
communion  with  him,  we  see  that  we 
cannot  keep  that  command  if  we  let  evil 
enter  the  meal.  If  we  allow  our  table  to 
become  a  scene  of  quarreling,  of  gluttony, 
of  lewd  conversation,  of  godless  revelry, 
we  are  communing  with  demons  and  so 
cannot  be  communing  with  Christ.  But 
if  we  indeed  make  the  loaf  of  each  daily 
repast  a  remembrancer  of  Christ,  the 
bread  of  heaven,  then  the  daily  table  will 
be  kept  free  from  all  evil,  it  will  be  a 
place  of  sacred  thought,  and  we  shall  eat 
our  meat  in  the  "  gladness  "  of  a  constant 
communing  with  our  Lord. 

It  is  from  verse  16  of  this  chapter  that 
to  the  breaking  of  bread  has  been  given 
the  name  of  "  The  Communion."  In 
the  original,  however,  and  also  the  Re- 
vised Version,  it  not  the  but  a  commun- 
ion, one  of  several  forms  of  drawing  near 


88  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

to  Christ.  It  is  but  another  survival  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  which  is 
seen  in  the  idea  that  the  church  meal  is 
"  the  holy  of  holies  of  Christian  worship, 
the  highest  and  closest  union  the  church 
can  ever  enjoy  on  earth  with  her  heavenly 
head,"  and  considers  admission  to  the 
church  table  a  more  solemn  thing  than 
to  permit  one  to  unite  with  us  in  prayer 
or  praise  to  the  Lord.  A  good  statement 
of  the  New  Testament  doctrine  is  found 
in  the  Articles  of  Religion  of  the  Re- 
formed Episcopal  Church  : — **  We  feed 
on  Christ  only  through  his  Word,  and  only 
by  faith  and  prayer  ;  and  we  feed  on 
him,  whether  at  our  private  devotions,  or 
in  our  meditations,  or  on  any  occasion  of 
public  worship,  or  in  the  memorial  sym- 
bolism of  the  Supper." 


XL 

Love  to  tJie  Brethren. 

WE  now  come  to  the  familiar  passage 
in  I  Corinthians  xi.  At  Corinth 
as  at  Troas  there  is  an  agape  or  church 
meal.  But  Paul  declares  that  they  so 
conduct  it  that  it  is  ''not  for  the  better 
but  for  the  worse"  and  that  though 
designed  as  such  it  cannot  truly  be  con- 
sidered "  a  supper  of  the  Lord." 

It  is  from  a  mistranslation  in  this 
clause  that  the  term  ''  The  Lord's 
Supper"  has  come  to  be  applied  to  the 
Breaking  of  Bread.  This  is  the  only 
passage  in  which  occurs  the  term  Kvpiamv 
f)£iKvov  and  as  it  is  not  preceded  by  the 
definite  article  it  cannot  be  considered  a 
specific  appellative.  Therefore,  the  ren- 
dering should  be  not  "  T/ie  Lord's 
Supper"  but,  "a  supper  of  the  Lord," 
that  is,  a  repast    eaten  in    the  spirit    of 


90  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

Christ.  Meyer's  construction  of  the 
passage  is, — "There  does  not  take  place 
an  eating  of  a  Lord's  supper,"  that  is, 
"  a  meal  belonging  to  the  Lord,  conse- 
crated to  Christ."  See  also  Cambridge 
Bible  and  the  translation  of  the  Ameri- 
can Baptist  Publication  Society. 

The  article  on  the  "  Lord's  Supper  "  in 
Blunt's  Dictionary  of  Historical  and 
Doctrinal  Theology  speaks  of  it  as  *'  a 
term  originally  belonging  to  the  love- 
feast  "  and  adds,  "  It  can  scarcely  be 
said  to  have  been  known  as  a  name  for 
the  Eucharist  in  ancient  times;"  and 
again,  "  In  early  English  whenever  this 
name  was  used  it  was  applied  either  to 
the  Last  Supper  or  to  the  marriage 
supper  of  the  king  in  the  parable."  "  In 
1530  the  term  Cavia  Domini  is  used  in 
the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  which,  and 
its  adoption  by  Calvin,  points  perhaps  to 
the  origin  of  its  popular  use  " — this  being 
declared  "a  novel  and  inexact  use  of  the 
term." 

Prof.  H,  G.  Weston  of  Crozer  Theolog- 


Love  to  the  Brethren.  91 

ical  Seminary  in  his  Ecclesiology  says  : 
— ''The  ordinance  is  not  called  'The 
Lord's  Supper'  in  the  New  Testament. 
In  I  Cor.  xi.  20  where  the  phrase  occurs, 
the  apostle  is  not  giving  a  proper  name  ; 
if  he  were,  the  order  of  the  Greek  words 
would  be  different  *  -  '^  ^H7Tvov  cannot 
mean  a  morsel  of  food  and  a  sip  of  wine." 

The  reason  for  the  apostle's  severe  de- 
nunciation is  given  in  verse  18, — and  be 
it  carefully  noted  that  only  one  reason  is 
given,  namely,  that  there  are  "divisions" 
among  them. 

From  early  Christian  writings  we  find 
that  the  ancient  churches  provided  for 
their  church  meals  much  as  we  do  for 
the  church  sociable  and  Sunday-school 
picnic  of  modern  times,  the  well-to-do 
families  bringing  liberal  gifts  of  provisions 
and  those  of  limited  means  contributing 
according  to  their  ability,  while  the  poor 
were  excused  from  bringing  anything; 
but  all  was  to  be  put  into  the  common 
stock,  so  that  poor  and  rich  should  share 
alike.       It    seems,  however,  that    in    the 


9 2  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

wealthy  church  at  Corinth  lines  of  divi- 
sion had  been  drawn  so  that  the  rich 
members  sat  apart  by  themselves  with 
their  sumptuous  viands,  leaving  their 
poorer  brethren  not  only  hungry  but  also 
cruelly  slighted. 

The  Cambridge  Bible  says  : — "  The  divi- 
sions among  the  Corinthian  Christians 
were  of  the  kind  w'hich  we  denominate 
'sets  in  a  small  society, — cliques  and  co- 
teries, which  w^ere  the  product  not  so 
much  of  theological  as  of  social  antag- 
onism. Thus  the  members  of  the  Corin- 
thian Church  were  accustomed  to  share 
their  provisions  with  members  of  their 
own  'set'  to  the  exclusion  of  those  who, 
having  an  inferior  social  position  had 
few  provisions  or  none  to  bring.  Hence 
while  one  was  only  too  well  provided  with 
food,  another  had  none." 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says  : — "  It  is  evi- 
dent that  agreeably  to  a  familiar  Grecian 
custom  the  persons  assembled  brought 
their  own  provisions,  wdiich  being  placed 
on  the  table  formed  a  common  stock.     It 


Love  to  the  Brethren.  93 

was  however  essential  to  the  very  idea  of 
a  Christian  feast  that  it  should  be  a  com- 
munion, that  all  the  guests  at  the  table 
of  their  common  Lord  should  be  on  terms 
of  equality.  Instead  of  this  fraternal 
union,  there  were  divisions  among  the 
Corinthians  even  at  the  Lord's  table,  the 
rich  eating  by  themselves  the  provisions 
which  they  had  brought  and  leaving  their 
poorer  brethren  unsatisfied  and  hungry." 

When  thus  they  were  guilty  of  "  a 
cruel  perversion  of  a  feast  of  love  into  a 
means  of  humiliating  and  wounding  their 
poorer  brethren,"  what  wonder  that  the 
apostle  should  declare  that  their  meal 
was  not  "a  supper  of  the  Lord,"  a  repast 
pervaded  with  Christlike  love, — that  it 
was  not  ''for  the  better"  as  it  might 
have  been  but  ''  for  the  worse,"  an  evil 
instead  of  a  blessing,  and  that  they  might 
better  have  no  church  meal  at  all  than 
such  an  unfraternal  assembling! 

To  show  how  inconsistent  their  conduct 
was  with  that  fellowship  which  should 
rule  among  those  who  profess  to  believe 


94  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

in  the  same  Saviour,  the  apostle  recounts 
the  incidents  of  Christ's  command  to  eat 
and  drink  in  remembrance  of  him.  He 
reminds  them  of  what  he  had  before  **  de- 
livered," that  on  his  very  last  night  with 
the  disciples  the  Lord  pointed  it  out  that 
the  bread  which  sustains  the  body  is  a 
symbol  of  him,  the  support  of  the  soul, 
and  that  the  blood  of  the  grape  is  an 
image  of  his  shed  blood,  and  that  he  then 
commanded  that  henceforth  always  in 
eating  bread  and  drinking  the  fruit  of  the 
vine  they  should  be  reminded  of  him  and 
his  death  for  them.  Now  if  the  wealthy 
Corinthians  in  eating  their  rich  feast  had 
been  by  it  put  in  memory  of  the  more 
precious  bread  of  heaven,  and  drinking 
their  red  wine  had  been  reminded  by  it 
of  Christ's  redeeming  blood,  they  would 
also  have  thought  with  tenderness  of 
their  poorer  brethren,  Christ's  little  ones, 
servants  of  the  same  Lord  and  partakers 
of  the  same  salvation.  Wherefore  he 
bids  them  "  tarry  one  for  another,"  shar- 
ing their  meal  in  love,  remembering  that 


Love  to  the  Brethren.  95 

all   are   one    in  Christ  who  died  to  save 
poor  and  rich  alike. 

There  is  lack  of  warrant  for  the  com- 
mon assertion  that  the  meal  at  Corinth 
was  marked  by  "  excesses."  This  idea 
has  arisen  entirely  from  the  phrase, — 
"  another  is  drunken."  But  this  stands 
contrasted,  not  with — one  is  sober,  but 
with — one  is  hungry.  The  word  used  is 
that  in  John  ii.  10 — "  When  men  have  well 
drunk."  This  may  mean — not,  are  in- 
toxicated,— but,  are  sated,  are  cloyed. 
Godet  says; — ''The  word  [^^^i^^v  usually 
signified  to  be  intoxicated,  but  it  may 
also  be  applied  to  eating,  in  the  sense  in 
which  we  say, — to  eat  his  fill, — and  so  to 
form  a  contrast,  as  is  the  case  in  this 
passage,  to  Treaaz-^  /^  ^^^  Jiungryr  The 
passage  might  be  construed  as  meaning 
merely, — another  feasts,  banquets,  rev- 
els ;  the  allusion  being  to  the  profusion 
placed  before  the  sitter  rather  than  to  an 
immoderate  participation  therein.  It  is 
not  in  "  another  is  drunken  "  but  in  the 
"  one  is   hungry  "  that  the  gravamen  of 


96  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

the  apostle's  charge  is  found  ;  the  wrong 
being  not  so  much  in  the  abundance 
enjoyed  by  the  one  as  in  the  co-existence 
of  that  profusion  with  his  neighbor's 
destitution.  The  banqueting  of  the  rich 
is  not  the  subject  of  an  additional  charge 
but  merely  an  illustration  of  the  original 
charge,  that  of  unfraternal  "  divisions." 

And  furthermore,  had  there  been  actual 
drunkenness  the  apostle  would  certainly 
have  alluded  to  it  again  in  telling  them 
how  they  should  conduct  their  meal. 
He  does  not  however  charge  them  to 
drink  less  or  eat  less,  but  only  to  ''wait 
one  for  another,"  to  let  all  share  alike. 
Surely,  he  did  not  intend  that  all  should 
become  intoxicated ! 

Nor  can  we  understand  that  the  apos- 
tle condemns  them  for  having  an  actual 
meal  as  distinguished  from  a  "  make-be- 
lieve "  supper.  If  the  scholars  quoted  in 
a  previous  chapter  were  found  to  be  cor- 
rect in  saying  that  the  breaking  of  bread 
at  Jerusalem,  and  at  Troas,  was  an  agape, 
an   actual  meal,  should  we  be   ready  to 


Love  to  the  Bretkre?i.  97 

say  therefore  that  the  disciples  in  those 
cities  ate  and  drank  damnation  to  them- 
selves? Cannot  one  "  discern  the  body" 
and  remember  the  Lord  in  an  actual  sup- 
per? Will  not  the  loaf  and  cup  of  a  true 
meal  "  shew  "  or  "  proclaim  "  the  Lord's 
death?  Just  how  meagre  must  a  repast 
be  in  order  that  it  may  be  eaten  "  in  re- 
membrance "  ? 

So  far  from  intimating  that  there  should 
have  been  served  only  a  morsel  of  bread 
and  one  sip  of  wine  to  each,  which  would 
have  been  no  supper  at  all,  the  apostle's 
complaint  is  that  the  "hungry"  brother 
(v.  21)  was  left  hungry  instead  of  being 
given  a  full  satisfying  meal.  And  again, 
the  direction  to  *'  tarry  one  for  another," 
that  is  to  share  their  supper,  would  have 
no  pertinence  whatever  if  there  was  to  be 
really  no  meal  to  share,  nothing  which  a 
selfish  person  would  be  tempted  to  take 
"  before  other"  for  himself  alone. 

As  to  the  passage,  **  If  any  man  hun- 
ger, let  him  eat  at  honie/'  it  must  be 
construed  in  connection  with  the  arraign- 


98  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

ment  in  verse  21, — "one  is  hungry." 
Here  is  one  who  did  *' hunger,"  but  does 
the  apostle  mean  to  censure  this  poor 
brother  that  he  did  not  get  his  supper 
before  coming  ?  Does  he  not  the  rather 
imply  that  this  destitute  saint  ought  to 
have  found  in  the  church  gathering  a 
good  hearty  meal  such  as  his  own  poor 
dwelling  would  not  afford  ?  The  meaning 
of  the  passage  is  simply  this  that  if  the 
rich  man  cares  for  nothing  but  feasting,  if 
he  has  no  desire  for  loving  fellowship 
with  his  brethren,  he  had  better  feast  at 
home,  and  not  come  to  the  church  assem- 
bly to  display  his  lack  of  fraternal  spirit. 
In  like  manner  the  question,  "  Have  ye 
not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in?"  is 
explained  by  the  further  inquiry  whether 
they  wish  to  **  shame  them  that  have 
not."  Now,  however  costly  viands  the 
rich  members  had  brought  they  would 
not  have  shamed  their  poorer  brethren 
had  tliey  cordially  invited  the  latter  to 
sit  down  with  them  and  share  this  boun- 
tiful   provision.     The    putting  to  shame 


Love  to  the  Brethren.  99 

was  done,  not  in  providing  a  rich  feast 
but  in  eating  that  feast  by  themselves 
"  before,"  right  in  the  presence  of,  their 
humbler  brethren  but  leaving  them  out 
of  it.  And  the  apostle  tells  these 
wealthy  members  that  if  all  they  care  for 
is  to  banquet  with  their  rich  friends  they 
had  better  do  it  in  their  own  elegant 
houses,  where  at  least  they  will  not  be 
giving  their  poorer  brethren  the  cut 
direct  and  thus  insulting  the  church  of 
God  in  its  tenderest  emotions  through 
an  insult  to  its  ''  little  ones." 

The  apostle  says,  (Rev.  Vers.), — ''  For 
as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink 
the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death 
till  he  come.  Wherefore  whosoever 
shall  eat  the  bread  or  drink  the  cup  of 
the  Lord  unworthily  shall  be  guilty  -of 
the  body  and  the  blood  of  the  Lord. 
But  let  a  man  prove  himself,  and  so  let 
him  eat  of  the  bread  and  drink  of  the 
cup.  For  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh 
eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  unto  him- 
self if  he  discern  not  the  body." 


loo  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

The  loaf  and  cup  of  their  agape,  an  ac- 
tual meal,  served  to  "proclaim  the  Lord's 
death  "  (p.  52),  and  could  be  called  the 
bread  and  cup  *' of  the  Lord,"  for  the 
Lord  himself  had  pointed  out  the  symbol 
of  himself  which  resided  in  every  loaf 
and  ever}^  cup.  And  in  taking  of  them  a 
man  should  *'  prove  himself,"  searching 
with  care  whether  he  was  indeed  gather- 
ing from  them  the  lesson  they  set  before 
him. 

By  ''the  body"  some  understand  the 
Church,  which  is  Christ's  body,  member- 
ship in  which  makes  honorable  the  hum- 
blest disciple.  Those  did  not  "  discern  the 
body  "  who  deemed  it  a  thing  of  no  im- 
port that  their  poorer  brethren  were  en- 
rolled with  them  in  the  Church  of  Christ. 
And  this  is  practically  the  meaning  even 
though  the  direct  reference  be  to  Christ 
himself,  for  if  we  duly  reverence  Christ 
we  shall  honor  all  who  have  been  exalted 
by  salvation  through  him.  He  who  de- 
spises Christ's  little  ones  despises  Christ 
whose  glory  they  share.     And  when  the 


Love  to  the  Brethre?t.  lol 

rich  Corinthians  failed  to  have  a  proper 
judgment  of  the  honor  due  their  poorer 
brethren,  they  ate  and  drank  judgment 
against  themselves. 

It  is  not  eating  and  drinking  unworth- 
ily to  remember  Christ  in  an  actual  meal ; 
but  to  eat  and  drink  with  a  wrong  spirit. 
To  "  discern  not  the  body  "  : — this  is  not 
for  one  to  see  an  image  of  Christ  the  bread 
of  heaven  in  food  taken  to  satisfy  hunger 
as  truly  as  in  the  loaf  of  ecclesiastical 
ceremony;  it  is  to  eat  in  a  temper  of  mind 
which  by  sin  against  Christ  reveals  for- 
getfulness  of  him.  It  is  not  a  rnistake 
concerning  the  significance  of  a  bit  of 
ritual,  but  a  wrong  state  of  heart,  on 
which  condemnation  is  here  pronounced. 
It  was  not  ill-chosen  forms,  but  an  un- 
christly  spirit,  which  aroused  the  apostle's 
indignation. 

The  Corinthians  ate  and  drank  un- 
worthily not  in  having  a  liberal  repast 
but  in  neglecting  to  share  it  with  their 
poorer  brethren.  Says  Chrysostom  on 
this  passage, — "  For  how  can  it  be  other 


102  Christ  in  t lie  Daily  Meal. 

than  unworthily  when  one  neglects  the 
hungry  and  puts  him  to  shame  ?  "  and, — 
"  Thou  hast  tasted  the  blood  of  the  Lord 
and  not  even  then  dost  thou  acknowledge 
thy  brother.  If  even  before  this  thou 
didst  not  know  him  thou  oughtest  to 
have  recognized  him  at  the  table,  but  now 
thou  dishonorest  the  table  itself,  for 
though  thy  poor  brother  has  been  deemed 
worthy  a  seat  thereat  thou  judgest  him 
not  worthy  of  thy  meat." 

What  the  apostle  condemns  in  the 
supper  of  the  Corinthians  is  not  an  injudi- 
ciously bountiful  bill  of  fare  but  a  viola- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  Christian  love.  In- 
stead of  being  "  a  supper  of  the  Lord," 
a  KvprnKov  de'iTTvov,  a  suppcr  eaten  in  the  spirit 
of  Christ,  it  was  a  man's  "  own  supper," 
TO  idiov  dei-vov,  a  supper  eaten  in  the  spirit  of 
one's  own  selfishness.  The  blame  is  not 
for  having  a  sumptuous  repast  but  for  not 
sharing  it  in  love.  The  evil  was  not  in 
the  meal  itself  but  in  the  spirit  in  which 
it  was  eaten. 

We  find  then  in  this  chapter  not  only 


Love  to  the  Bret /wen.  103 

that  the  church  meal  at  Corinth  was  an 
actual  repast  but  also  that  Paul  sanc- 
tions this,  the  only  fault  he  finds  bein<j 
that  the  "hungry"  are  not  filled  thereat. 
His  concluding  injunction, — "Wherefore 
my  brethren,  when  ye  come  together  to 
eat,  tarry  one  for  another," — implies  his 
approval  of  their  continuing  to  have  a 
liberal  supper,  provided  only  it  be  shared 
in  true  Christian  fellowship. 

To  sum  up :  as  we  read  the  book  of 
Acts  and  the  Epistles,  zue  find  no  cJuirch 
supper  bnt  the  Agape.  This  was  not  a 
"  ceremony,"  it  was  a  true  repast.  No- 
where in  Scripture  is  it  taught  that  the 
remembrance  of  Christ  should  be  only  in 
the  sinnilacriivi  of  a  meal.  Nor  does  the 
remembrance  of  Christ  in  a  church  supper 
imply  that  he  could  not  be  remembered 
also  in  the  home  meal,  any  more  than 
the  holding  of  a  church  prayer-meeting 
implies  that  one  should  not  pray  by  him- 
self alone, 


XII. 

Hislorzcal. 

SO  far  this  discussion  has  been  strictly 
biblical.  It  has  rigidly  confined  it- 
self to  the  question, — What  is  the  mean- 
ing of  these  passages  of  Scripture  which 
refer  to  the  breaking  of  bread  ?  The 
conclusion  reached  has  been  that  the 
modern  ecclesiastical  supper,  the  taking 
of  a  morsel  of  bread  and  one  swallow  of 
wine,  directly  and  solely  for  memorial 
purposes,  is  not  what  Jesus  instituted  ; 
that  his  command,  his  *'  Ordinance,"  was 
a  remembrance  of  him  in  every  meal. 
But  though  it  were  made  plain  beyond 
question  that  the  New  Testament  con- 
tains neither  prescription  nor  precedent 
for  the  modern  church  supper,  many 
would  still  be  unable  to  divest  themselves 
of  the  belief  that  what  has  been  the 
usage  for  so  long  a  time  must  certainly 


Historical.  105 

have  come  down  from  the  Apostles. 
And  the  question  will  be  asked, — Do 
you  really  mean  to  say  that  the  whole 
church  has  been  in  error  for  so  many 
centuries  ? 

But  if  we  assert  this  our  boldness  will 
not  be  without  precedent.  The  Baptists 
do  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  nearly 
the  whole  church  fell  into  error  regarding 
the  subjects  of  baptism  ;  the  Presby- 
terians affirm  the  same  regarding  orders 
in  the  ministry,  and  the  Congregation- 
lists  make  the  same  assertion  concerning 
church  government  ;  and  these,  certainly, 
cannot  declare  it  a  thing  incredible  that 
there  should  have  arisen  in  like  manner 
the  most  widespread  error  concerning  the 
breaking  of  bread. 

Be  it  observed,  moreover,  that  for 
nearly  four  centuries  the  "  whole  Church  " 
has  not  held  any  one  doctrine  on  this 
subject.  The  Roman  Catholics  have 
taught  one  thing,  the  Lutherans  another, 
and  in  the  Reformed  Churches  still 
other   views    have    prevailed.     Each    of 


io6  Clirist  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

these  conflicting  theories  has  been  held 
by  godly  and  learned  men,  which  is  say- 
ing also  that  each  opinion  in  its  turn  has 
been  condemned  by  men  of  deepest  piety 
and  profoundest  erudition.  When  there- 
fore the  church  doctors  have  thus  nulli- 
fied each  others'  authority,  we  are  at 
perfect  liberty  to  form  our  own  opinion  ; 
indeed,  their  mutual  condemnations  have 
left  us  no  resource  whatever  but  to  turn 
to  the  New  Testament  for  ourselves,  and 
take  that  view  of  its  teachings  which 
shall  seem  to  us  the  correct  one. 

And,  by  the  way,  the  appeal  in  this 
matter  to  Church  authority  is  not  one 
which  Evangelical  Protestants  can  well 
make,  for  the  only  one  of  these  conflict- 
ing doctrines  which  that  authority  would 
in  any  way  seem  to  support  is  the  theory 
of  transubstantiation,  this  being  the  only 
one  which  could  make  even  the  remotest 
claim  to  have  been  held  semper  et  ttbique. 

That  a  usage  is  ancient  does  not  prove 
that  it  was  Apostolic.  Even  within  a 
hundred    years    after   the   death    of    the 


Historical.  1 07 

Apostles  we  find  in  the  churches  ideas 
and  practices  which  Evangelical  Protes- 
tants will  declare  to  be  without  Apostolic 
sanction.  The  conception  of  the  Eucha- 
rist as  a  sacrifice  is  found  early  in  the 
Second  Century.  As  early  as  the  days  of 
Justin  Martyr  we  see  the  elements  in 
the  church  supper  sent  to  absent  mem- 
bers, and  in  the  writings  of  Ignatius, 
Irenseus  and  Tertullian  we  find  supersti- 
tious views  concerning  baptism,  the  me- 
morial eating  and  other  usages.  Good 
men  very  soon  began  to  mix  error  v/ith 
Christian  faith. 

We  have  seen  that  the  memorial  eat- 
ing in  the  Apostolic  churches  was  an 
ordinary  meal  of  Christian  fellowship. 
The  expression  in  the  Didache  (x),  "  Now 
after  that  ye  are  filled,"  kii7z}.7]c6iivai,  would 
indicate  that  this  was  still  the  case  in 
the  Second  Century.  But  there  soon 
arose  a  superstitious  confounding  of 
symbol  with  substance,  and  there  came 
to  be  a  separation  between  the  meal  of 
fellowship    or   the  "  love-feast "  and    the 


io8  Christ  hi  the  Daily  Meal. 

memorial  eating  and  drinking,  though 
the  latter  was  still  observed  at  the  same 
sitting  as  the  former,  preceding  or  fol- 
lowing it.  In  time  the  two  were  fully 
separated,  and  still  later  the  love-feast 
was  wholly  abandoned,  the  actual  supper 
becoming  entirely  a  tiling  of  the  past, 
and  there  remained  only  a  fictitious  eat- 
ing and  drinking.  Thus  the  mere  simu- 
lacrum of  a  meal  which  is  all  that  is 
found  in  the  modern  church,  even  in 
ultra  Protestant  communions,  is  derived 
not  from  Apostolic  usage  but  from  eccle- 
siastical superstitions.  The  current  con- 
ception of  the  proper  form  of  eating  in 
remembrance  of  Christ  is  as  destitute  of 
support  in  church  history  as  in  Scripture. 
In  the  course  of  centuries  the  idea 
gained  full  currency  that  the  declaration, 
— "  This  is  my  body," — meant  that  the 
loaf  was  Christ's  body  in  constituent  sub- 
stance, becoming  such  when  the  priest 
pronounced  these  words  of  the  Saviour. 
The  dominance  of  this  conception  con- 
firmed the  change  of  the  memorial  eating 


Historical.  109 

into  a  purely  ecclesiastical  institution. 
If  only  that  bread  is  Christ's  body  which 
becomes  such  under  the  hands  of  the 
priest,  no  man  can  eat  the  holy  supper 
except  a  priest  minister  to  him.  The 
sacred  meal  may  be  served  to  a  single 
person  but  only  a  priest  can  dispense  it. 

On  the  other  hand  the  Evangelical 
Churches  when  they  discarded  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Real  Presence  should  have 
discarded  also  the  idea  of  the  necessity  of 
a  sacerdotal  ministration.  If  the  loaf  be 
Christ's  body  only  in  symbol,  a  layman  can 
preside  at  the  breaking  of  bread  the  same 
as  at  a  prayer  meeting,  for  any  disciple  is 
competent  to  declare  that  the  bread  and 
wine  are  emblems  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood. 

The  Roman  Catholic  conception  sur- 
vives, however,  even  in  ultra  Protestant 
circles.  The  Westminster  Confession  rec- 
ognizes only  "  ministers  "  as  competent  to 
"bless  the  elements,"  and  give  them  to 
the  people.  And  though  Baptist  writ- 
ers on  church  polity  all  say  that  a  church 


1 10  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

could  properly  call  on  a  deacon  or  private 
member  to  preside  at  the  breaking  of 
bread,  this,  in  the  United  States  at  least, 
is  seldom  or  never  done  ;  but  a  church 
will  go  for  months  without  the  memorial 
eating,  if  no  *'  regularly  ordained  minis- 
ter"  is  at  hand  to  ''  officiate."  Not  even 
a  licensed  preacher  and  candidate  for  or- 
dination will  be  allowed  to  act,  but  the 
good  people  will  send  miles  away  and 
bring  some  retired  clergyman,  a  respecta- 
ble old  gentleman  who  has  been  for  years 
engaged  in  school  teaching  or  farming, 
and  whose  ordination  like  his  vaccination 
must  have  run  out  long  ago.  This  is 
akin  to  the  superstition  which  still  lingers 
in  many  Protestant  Churches,  that  only 
an  ''ordained  minister"  can  "pronounce 
the  benediction." 

And  is  it  not  a  lingering  of  the  medi- 
eval idea  that  the  bread  on  the  Church 
table  is  Christ's  actual  body  and  must  be 
approached  with  special  awe,  which  makes 
the  demand  for  a  "preparatory  lecture  " 
or  other  special  service   to    precede  the 


Historical,  1 1 1 

memorial  eating?  Of  course  we  should 
proceed  thoughtfully  in  all  religious  acts 
and  there  could  be  no  objection  if  the 
prayer-meeting  were  opened  with  certain 
"preparatory"  remarks.  But  the  New 
Testament  nowhere  makes  communion 
with  Christ  in  the  breaking  of  bread  any 
more  solemn  an  occasion  than  drawino- 
near  to  him  in  prayer  or  praise  or  other 
Christian  exercises. 

Our  inherited  superstitions  extend  even 
to  the  utensils  employed  in  the  memorial 
eating.  Preaching  once  in  a  little  prairie 
church  in  Southern  Illinois,  and  being 
called  on  to  preside  at  the  breaking  of 
bread,  I  found  on  the  table  plates  of  com- 
mon blue  stone  ware  with  ordinary  glass 
tumblers,  the  wine  being  in  a  small 
pitcher  from  the  every  day  table.  I  was 
shocked  at  such  rustic  informality.  But 
on  second  thought  I  asked  myself  whether 
I  had  ever  before  seen  a  church  table 
furnished  so  nearly  like  that  of  our  Lord's 
Last  Supper.  For  on  that  table  in  the 
"  upper  room  "  must    have    been  merely 


1 1 2  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

the  cups  and  plates  of  daily  household 
use ;  and  I  felt  ashamed  that,  pretending 
to  know  something  of  New  Testament 
history,  I  had  mentally  demanded  a  spe- 
cial *'  flagon  "  and  "  chalice  "  such  as  the 
Saviour  certainly  did  not  use. 

How  shocked  should  we  be  if  at  a 
church  sociable  where  there  was  a  short- 
age of  dishes  some  one  should  propose  to 
bring  out  the  "  Communion  Service  "  ! 
But  the  cup  the  Lord  used  that  solemn 
night  was  doubtless  put  on  the  breakfast 
table  the  next  morning.  Numberless  are 
the  legends  of  the  Holy  Grail,  the  cup  of 
the  Last  Supper,  which  the  old  Knights 
roamed  the  wide  world  over  to  seek. 
But  there  can  be  little  doubt  what  be- 
came of  the  holy  grail.  It  was  used  in 
the  home  service  the  next  day,  and  the 
next,  and  so  on  for  years,  till  battered  and 
broken  it  was  cast  away ;  and  as  it  lay 
there  on  the  rubbish  heap  its  fragments 
were  sacred  not  alone  because  it  had  been 
pressed  by  the  hands  of  the  Lord,  but 
also    in    that    it    had    served  a  thousand 


Historical.  1 1 3 

times  to  slake  the  thirst  of  toil  and  to 
bear  the  cooling  draught  to  the  fevered 
lips  of  the  sick  and  in  a  multitude  of 
other  ways  to  do  God's  work  in  the  world, 
till  angel  eyes  could  read  upon  it  the 
"  Holiness  to  the  Lord."  The  cup  of  the 
Last  Supper  was  the  cup  of  the  daily 
meal,  and  we  add  not  to  its  sanctity  when 
we  dissociate  it  from  the  sacred  services 
of  the  home  life.  And  we  shall  show  a 
more  intelligent  understanding  of  that 
Last  Supper  as  a  whole  if  we  strive  to  re- 
member Christ  in  every  meal,  as  he  then 
bade  his  disciples  do. 

Very  many  are  the  mistaken  concep- 
tions which  have  grown  up  in  the  Church 
in  the  course  of  the  centuries,  and  it  Is 
difficult  for  us  to  get  back  to  primitive 
views.  As  the  shell  long  survives  the 
death  of  the  creature  on  which  it  grew, 
so  erroneous  ecclesiastical  ideas  and  cus- 
toms will  remain  in  full  force  when  the 
false  doctrines  in  which  they  originated 
have  been  discarded  for  centuries.  Even 
in  ultra  Evangelical  circles  there  remains 


1 14  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

much  of  "  Romish"  conception,  and  the 
medieval  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence 
still  controls  our  procedure  in  the  church 
meal.  Though  we  claim  that  "  the  Bible 
alone  is  the  religion  of  Protestants,"  the 
Agape,  which  is  undeniably  Apostolic, 
has  no  place  in  our  church  life,  while  the 
supper  of  ritual  which  is  unknown  to  the 
New  Testament  and  has  no  warrant  ex- 
cept in  ecclesiastical  usage  is  regarded 
with  an  awe  nearly  if  not  quite  super- 
stitious. 

As  in  Milton's  description  of  the  bring- 
ing forth  of  the  beasts  by  the  earth 
we  see  "  the  tawny  lion,  pawing  to  get 
free  his  hinder  parts,"  so  even  the  stout- 
est Protestantism  needs  to  struggle  and 
pull  a  little  longer  to  disengage  itself  en- 
tirely from  Roman  Catholic  ideas. 


XIII. 
PracticaL 

BUT  what  is  the  practical  outcome  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  preceding 
pages? — for  it  is  by  this  alone  that  many 
will  judge  it.  It  may  be  answered  most 
emphatically  that  there  is  nothing  there- 
in to  which  the  most  timid  conservative 
can  object. 

It  is  merely  proposed  that  a  believer 
in  Jesus  sitting  down  to  his  daily  bread 
shall  ask  a  blessing  substantially  as  fol- 
lows,— "  Oh  Lord,  I  thank  thee  for  this 
food  which  supports  my  mortal  life,  and 
now  beholding  in  it  a  symbol  of  the  bread 
of  heaven,  I  pray  that  as  I  eat  this  which 
thou  hast  provided  to  sustain  my  bodily 
powers,  my  soul  may  feed  on  Christ  the 
spiritual  bread."  Certainly  no  one  can 
object  to  such  a  "  grace  before  meat." 
But  do  you  not  see  that  this  is  in  sub- 


1 1 6  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

stance  the  prayer  to  be  offered  over  the 
bread  in  church  ?  We  may  say  then 
with  all  boldness  that  the  prayer  made 
over  the  loaf  in  church  may  and  should 
be,  for  substance,  the  "  blessing"  over  the 
daily  meal,  and  the  meditations  in  the 
mind  of  the  one  who  devoutly  eats  in 
church  should  be  in  our  minds  as  we  eat 
our  daily  food.  And  if  to  the  invalid 
his  physician  has  prescribed  the  drinking 
of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  which,  still  un- 
fermented,  the  most  temperate  may  drink, 
why  may  he  not  behold  in  it  an  image 
of  Christ's  shed  blood,  and  drink  it  with 
the  same  prayer  and  thoughts  that  at- 
tend the  drinking  in  the  church  meal  ? 
Who  shall  say  that  it  is  a  profanation  if 
in  every  meal  one  reminds  himself  of 
Christ  and  his  death  the  same  as  in  the 
church  supper  ? 

Let  it  be  noted  that  it  is  not  here  in 
any  way  suggested  that  the  church  meal 
be  less  honored,  but  only  that  the  home 
meal  also  be  made  sacred.  There  is  no 
wish    nor   willingness    to     degrade    the 


Practical.  I T  7 

church  ceremonial,  but  only  to  lift  up  the 
daily  repast  to  an  equal  sacredness,  to 
secure  that  the  blessed  thoughts  which 
characterize  the  former  shall  pervade  the 
latter  also.  It  is  not  proposed  to  level 
down,  but  only  to  level  up.  Let  the 
church  supper  continue  to  be  a  holy  occas- 
ion but  let  it  not  be  the  only  sacred  hour. 
Why  should  it  not  rather  be  considered 
a  "model"  meal  and  object  lesson,  set- 
ting forth  the  spirit  in  which  every  meal 
shall  be  eaten,  a  "  rehearsal  "  in  which  we 
learn  more  fully  how  properly  to  eat  each 
week-day  repast  ?  And  if  it  would  not 
"  degrade  "  the  Sabbath  did  we  seek  to 
carry  its  spirit  through  the  whole  week 
how,  pray,  will  it  make  the  ecclesiastical 
meal  less  venerable  if  one  resolves  to 
make  every  breaking  of  bread  as  solemn, 
to  give  to  every  repast  the  sacredness 
which  marks  the  supper  in  church  ? 

Some  will  urge  that  it  is  impossible  to 
make  the  family  meal  so  sacred  an  occa- 
sion for  we  often  get  to  talking,  say  of 
politics,    and     disputing,    and    then     are 


1 1 8  CJirist  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

aroused  angry  feelings  which  banish  all 
religious  emotion.  Now  it  is  certainly 
true,  as  the  apostle  said,  that  '*  a  table  of 
demons  "  cannot  be  also  **  a  table  of  the 
Lord  "  but  happily  there  remains  one 
solution  of  the  difficulty,  namely,  to  ab- 
stain from  all  unkind  words  and  to  admit 
to  the  family  repast  only  those  lovely  emo- 
tions which  are  perfectly  consistent  with 
thoughts  of  Christ. 

The  objection  may  still  be  pressed  un- 
der the  modified  form  that  it  is  allowable 
and  often  necessary  that  the  conversation 
at  the  daily  table  shall  be  on  topics  al- 
together non-religious.  But  even  when 
the  mind  is  engaged  with  secular  thoughts 
there  may  be  in  it  a  spiritual  undertone. 
Take  the  emotion  of  gratitude  for  God's 
mercies :  it  is  sincerely  to  be  hoped  that 
it  does  not  entirely  vanish  from  our  minds 
with  the  last  word  of  the  "  blessing." 
Through  the  talking  and  laughing  of  the 
Thanksgiving  Dinner  may  there  not  re- 
main in  the  mind  a  spirit  of  praise  to  Him 
who  has  crowned  the  year  with  his  good- 


Practical.  119 

ness?  Beneath  the  hilarities  of  the 
Christmas  feast  may  there  not  be  many  a 
sweet  thought  of  the  Christ-child  of  Beth- 
lehem? Is  it  true  that  Christians  can  eat 
their  daily  bread  only  in  the  purely  secu- 
lar spirit  of  heathen  men  and  publicans? 
Why  should  not  every  meal  be  eaten  not 
only  in  physical  but  also  in  spiritual 
"  gladness  "? 

The  reformer  Melancthon  writes  to  a 
friend, — "  There  is  not  a  day  nor  a  night 
for  more  than  ten  years  that  I  have  not 
meditated  on  the  holy  supper."  Possibly 
some  of  his  thoughts  were  only  polemic, 
for  there  was  then  waged  an  exciting  and 
even  acrimonious  controversy  on  this 
topic.  But  why  should  not  a  disciple  of 
to-day  be  able  to  declare  that  "  for  more 
than  ten  years  "  he  has  not  sat  down  to 
a  meal,  when  in  taking  bread  for  the  sup- 
port of  his  body  he  has  not  thought  of 
Christ  the  food  of  his  soul? 

Some  one  may  suggest  that  the  memo- 
rial eating  would  lose  its  sacredness  and 
become  an  empty   form   if  we  sought  to 


1 20  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

remember  Christ  in  every  meal.  But 
this  is  the  old  argument  of  certain  good 
Scotch  Presbyterians  against  having  the 
''  sacrament  "  oftener  than  once  in  three 
months.  (See  John  M.  Mason's  Frequent 
Communion). — Now  would  Christ's  res- 
urrection be  celebrated  more  solemnly 
if  we  strove  to  remember  it  not  so  often 
as  once  a  week  but  only  in  an  annual 
Easter  or  on  a  Lord's  Day  once  in  five 
years?  Should  we  be  more  devout  in 
family  prayer  if  we  observed  it  but  fort- 
nightly, or  in  ''  grace  before  meat,"  if  it 
was  said  only  once  a  month  ?  Would  it 
be  better  to  "  consider  the  lilies  "  only 
at  very  rare  intervals  ?  May  it  not  be 
that  in  religion,  as  in  other  things,  that 
which  is  done  oftenest  will  be  done  easi- 
est ? 

The  question  is  this, — May  we  not 
have  substantially  the  same  thoughts  in 
the  daily  meal  that  we  have  in  the 
Church  Supper?  And  should  we  not? 
Unless  a  man  says  that  we  ougJit  not  to 
try  to  remember  Christ  in  every  meal  he 


PracticaL  121 

cannot  object  to  the  practical  side  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  foregoing  pages. 

"  Is  not  this  the  carpenter  ?  "  said  the 
men  of  Nazareth  ; — "  this  young  man 
whose  family  we  all  know,  can  he  be  the 
great  Messiah?"  And  soasks  some  one, 
— "  Can  the  daily  meal  be  eaten  in  re- 
membrance of  Christ?  Meat  and  pota- 
toes,— can  they  remind  us  of  the  food  of 
our  souls?"  But  blessed  is  that  disciple 
who  is  not  "  offended  "  at  the  fact  that 
with  the  leaven  and  the  mustard  seed  and 
the  salt  and  the  hen,  lowly  objects  of 
every  day  life,  Jesus  has  made  the 
homely  fare  on  the  cottage  board  a  sym- 
bol of  the  loftiest  divine  realities. 


XIV. 

The  C/mrck  Stepper, 

IN  the  preceding  pages  no  objection  has 
been  raised  to  the  present  custom  as 
to  the  ecclesiastical  breaking  of  bread. 
To  be  sure  there  is  no  Scripture  precedent 
for  the  imitation  meal  of  the  modern 
church,  but  neither  is  there  for  a  Christ- 
mas service,  nor  for  the  minister's  wear 
ing  a  peculiar  gown  in  preaching  or  bap- 
tizing, nor  for  the  ceremonial  giving  of 
"  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  "  to  new 
members  of  the  church.  The  Apostolic 
churches  never  set  out  to  do  every  single 
thing  which  would  possibly  be  profitable 
in  any  congregation  in  all  the  future  ages. 
If  therefore,  the  modern  church  meal  is 
found  to  be  edifying,  it  may  properly  be 
continued  even  without  exact  Scripture 
precedent. 


The  Church  Supper.  123 

It  is  not  proper  however  to  intimate 
that  the  church  meal  is  the  one  and  only 
supper  of  the  Lord,  that  the  loaf  and  cup 
on  the  church  table  are  the  only  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  and  that  we  have  no 
right  to  remember  Christ  in  any  eating 
except  that  of  church  ceremony.  The 
bread  of  the  home  meal  is  Christ's  sym- 
bolic body  just  as  truly  as  the  loaf  of  the 
church  supper,  and  if  a  disciple  makes 
the  daily  loaf  and  cup  a  reminder  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood  he  obeys  the 
command,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of 
me,"  just  as  truly  as  do  those  who  eat 
in  church,  and  his  repast  is  just  as  truly 
"  a  supper  of  the  Lord." 

Nor  if  we  would  employ  strictly  Bibli- 
cal phraseology  shall  we  use  the  term, — 
The  Lord's  Supper, —  The  Lord's  table, 
or, —  The  Communion.  The  New  Testa- 
ment says  merely, — <t  supper  of  the  Lord, 
— a  table  of  the  Lord, — and  a  communion, 
(see  pp.  86,  87,  89,  also  the  original 
of  I  Cor.  X.  16,  21,  and  xi.  20;)  it  ap- 
points no  one  repast  but  every  meal  to  be 


124  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

eaten  in  remembrance  of  Christ  and  the 
'*  gladness"  of  communion  with  him. 

The  only  name  the  New  Testament 
gives  to  the  sacred  eating  is  the  Jewish 
designation  of  the  daily  meal,  namely, 
"the  breaking  of  bread."  As  the  Greeks 
called  a  supper,  a  symposium  or  a  drink- 
ing  together,  the  eating  being  implied,  so 
the  Jews  called  it  a  breaking  of  bread, 
the  drinking  being  understood.  But 
when  the  disciples  ''  came  together  to 
break  bread  "  we  understand  that  it  was 
not  merely  to  eat  together  in  friendship 
but  also  to  remember  Christ  in  so  doing. 
Therefore  a  proper  announcement  of  the 
church  supper  will  be  that  the  church 
will  assemble  for  "  the  breaking  of  bread 
in  remembrance  of  Christ  '* ;  or  still  bet- 
ter,— "  The  Remembrance  of  Christ  in 
the  Breaking  of  Bread."  Let  the  spirit- 
ual exercise  rather  than  the  physical  act 
be  made  prominent  in  the  designation. 

And  since  no  change  is  to  be  wn'ought 
by  priestly  manipulation  in  the  bread 
and  wine  on  the  church  table,  since  all 


The  Church  Supper.  125 

that  needs  doing  is  to  recognize  that 
these,  like  the  loaf  and  cup  of  the  daily 
meal,  are  symbols  of  spiritual  things,  and 
to  ask  that  they  be  blessed  to  the  par- 
takers as  such,  it  is  no  more  necessary 
that  a  particular  ecclesiastical  official 
preside  at  the  church  meal  than  that 
such  a  one  be  brought  to  *'  say  grace  "  at 
the  home  table.  Nor  need  it  be  thought 
that  only  a  "  deacon  "  can  distribute  the 
bread  and  wine.  Whoever  can  properly 
"  ask  the  blessing  "  and  pass  the  food  at 
the  home  table  can  do  so  in  the  church 
meal. 

And  let  a  welcome  to  the  church  sup- 
per be  given  to  all  devout  persons,  bap- 
tized or  unbaptized. 

Very  early  in  the  Church  arose  the 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.  It 
was  held  that  one  was  "  christened  "  or 
made  a  Christian,  was  brought  into  the 
spiritual  life,  in  baptism  and  only  in  bap- 
tism ;  and  then,  since  only  those  who 
possess  the  spiritual  life  can  commune 
with    Christ,   it  was  declared   that    none 


126  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

but  baptized  persons  could  be  admitted 
to  the  church  table. 

In  that  very  ancient  writing,  the  Did- 
ache,  (Ch.  ix)  we  read, — "  But  let  no  one 
eat  of  your  eucharist  except  those  bap- 
tized into  the  name  of  the  Lord,  for  con- 
cerning this  the  Lord  hath  said, — Give 
not  that  which  is  holy  to  the  dogs." 
Here  is  the  first  enunciation  of  the  rule 
of  '*  close-communion,"  and  the  reason 
for  it  is  plainly  stated,  namely,  that  a 
person  not  yet  baptized  is  not  spiritually 
fitted  for  the  sacred  eating.  For  fifteen 
centuries  no  other  ground  was  pleaded 
for  demanding  baptism  before  the  sup- 
per. Any  medieval  theologian  would 
have  given  this  reason  alone  for  the  rule. 
And  the  case  is  the  same  in  nine-tenths 
of  Christendom  at  the  present  time,  for 
any  Greek,  Roman,  Lutheran  or  Angli- 
can authority  of  to-day  will  take  the  same 
position  in  denying  the  holy  supper  to 
the  unbaptized. 

Evangelical  Protestants,  however,  who 
have  renounced  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 


TJie  Church  Supper.  127 

regeneration,  ought  logically  to  renounce 
also  the  close-communion  rule  which 
flowed  from  that  idea.  But  usages  will 
long  survive  the  doctrines  which  gave 
them  rise,  and  so  to-day  a  Presbyterian 
Church  celebrating  the  ''sacrament" 
would  not  invite  to  the  table  a  new  con- 
vert still  awaiting  baptism.  And  as  sheep 
follow  those  going  before  them,  Baptists 
also  have  unthinkingly  adopted  the  course 
of  the  Roman  Catholics  and  of  Protes- 
tant Pedo-baptists,  and  they  also  stoutly 
declare  that  baptism  is  an  "  essential 
pre-requisite"  to  the  church  meal. 

The  refusal  to  admit  the  unbaptized  to 
the  table  has  in  Pedobaptist  churches  no 
practical  effect,  for  almost  never  would 
admission  be  desired  by  one  who  has  not 
received  what  they  will  recognize  as  bap- 
tism. Baptists,  however,  finding  in  Scrip- 
ture no  baptism  but  a  burial  in  water  on 
profession  of  faith,  are  compelled  under 
this  rule  to  withhold  the  invitation  from 
the  great  mass  of  their  Christian  brethren 
since    these    being    merely    sprinkled    or 


128  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal, 

poured  upon,  and  that  in  unconscious  in- 
fancy, are  in  Baptist  eyes  only  unbaptized 
converts. 

It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  how  unrea- 
sonable and  how  unjust  is  the  outcry 
against  the  Baptists  for '*  close-commun 
ion  "  as  if  they  had  some  rule  in  this  mat- 
ter which  others  have  not.  The  Baptists 
do  merely  what  all  churches  do,  namely, 
they  refuse  to  invite  to  the  table  those 
who,  in  their  view,  have  never  been  bap- 
tized. In  the  communion  invitation  it- 
self, the  Baptists  have  no  restriction 
wdiich  the  other  churches  do  not  main- 
tain. They  differ  from  others  only  on 
the  question  to  whom  this  restriction  ap- 
plies. They  merely  refuse  to  admit  that 
sprinkling  in  infancy  is  New  Testament 
baptism.  To  condemn  them  for  not  in- 
viting Presbyterians  and  Methodists  to 
sit  down  with  them  at  the  table  is  simply 
to  condemn  them  for  refusing  to  admit 
that  Presbyterians  and  Methodists  have 
been  baptized  ;  it  is  merely  to  declare  that 
they  have  no  right  to  their  opinion  as 
Baptists. 


The  Chiirclt  Supper.  129 

But  on  the  other  hand  the  Baptists  can- 
not fully  defend  themselves  by  pleading 
that  ''all  other  churches"  exclude  the 
unbaptized.  That  argument  is  merely 
ad  Jwininem ;  it  may  be  sufficient  as 
against  Episcopalians  and-  Presbyterians, 
but  it  does  not  touch  the  principle.  Why 
do  Pedobaptist  Protestants  demand  bap- 
tism before  the  Supper?  It  is  because 
they  are  historically  related  to  the  Church 
of  Rome,  exhibiting  in  infant  baptism 
and  some  other  usages  a  survival  of  the 
Roman  doctrine  that  one  is  "christened," 
that  is,  made  a  Christian,  in  baptism. 
For  Roman  Catholics  and  for  "high 
church  "  Protestants  holding  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration,  it  is  logical  to 
hold  to  close  communion,  but  the  Baptists 
have  always  declared  that  a  man  is  "  chris- 
tened "  by  faith  alone,  entirely  apart  from 
baptism,  and  so  Baptists  have  no  ground 
for  withholding  the  Supper  till  after  bap- 
tism. 

The  Baptist  "logic  of  close  commun- 
ion "    is    faulty   in   this,  that   it   rests  on 


130  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

one  Pedobaptist  premise.  The  idea  that 
baptism  is  an  ''  essential  pre-requisite  " 
to  the  sacred  eating  is  not  a  Baptist  doc- 
trine, but,  like  infant  baptism,  it  is  an 
outcome  of  the  idea  of  baptismal  regener- 
ation. In  following  "  the  other  denom- 
inations "  in  adopting  the  close-commun- 
ion rule,  the  Baptists  have  made  a  colossal 
surrender  of  their  distinctive  tenets.  Let 
Baptists  adhere  strictly  to  their  own  prin- 
ciples, and  they  leave  for  ''  close  com- 
munion "  no  basis  whatever. 

It  is  urged  that  in  the  New  Testament 
we  find  no  unbaptized  person  at  the 
church  supper.  But  neither  do  we  find 
such  a  one  asked  to  preach.  In  the  Apos- 
tolic churches  all  who  were  invited  into 
the  pulpit  were  welcomed  to  the  table. 

Be  it  granted  that  baptism,  which 
symbolizes  the  beginning  of  the  new  life, 
should  precede  the  memorial  eating  in 
which  is  symbolized  its  maintenance. 
But  to  say  that  the  band  should  head  the 
procession  is  not  to  say  that  if  the  band 
has   failed   to  put   in  an  appearance   the 


The  Church  Supper.  131 

line  shall  not  move  without  it.  To  ad- 
mit that  baptism  should  precede  the 
memorial  eating  is  not  to  admit  that  the 
latter  is  unlawful  unless  so  preceded. 

It  is  urged  that  the  Commission  puts 
the  "  baptizing  them  "  before  the  "  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things."  But  no 
Baptist  pastor  would  hesitate  to  teach  an 
unbaptized  convert  to  hold  family  prayer 
nor  to  do  any  other  Christian  act,  unless  it 
be  to  eat  **  in  remembrance."  And  now 
by  what  exegetical  sleight  of  hand  can  the 
"  all  things  "  be  narrowed  down  to  this 
one  thing,  so  that  though  a  disciple  still 
unbaptized  may  be  taught  to  join  us  in 
every  other  Christian  exercise  he  must 
not  be  welcomed  to  unite  with  us  in 
breaking  bread  in  remembrance  of 
Christ  ? 

He  who  accepts  the  Baptist  principle 
cannot  say  that  baptism  is  a  pre-requisite 
to  the  memorial  eating  as  faith  is  to  bap- 
tism. If,  as  the  Baptists  hold,  regenera- 
tion is  not  wrought,  but  only  symbolized, 
in  baptism,  then  to    baptize  one  who  is 


132  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

not  yet  regenerate  is  an  unreasonable  act, 
an  unmeaning  rite.  But  if  one  be  regen- 
erated before  baptism,  then  he,  though  still 
unbaptized,  can  make  a  ''  remembrance  " 
of  Christ  as  genuine  as  that  of  his  bap- 
tized brother,  and  it  is  not  an  unmeaning 
and  unreasonable  act  for  him  to  eat  bread 
and  drink  wine  to  assist  such  remem- 
brance. 

What  is  the  object  of  the  church  sup- 
per ?  It  is  to  aid  us  in  our  remembrance 
of  Christ.  But  ought  not  our  unbaptized 
brother  also  to  remember  the  Saviour? 
We  have  already  noted  the  statement 
that  the  Supper  is  "  a  symbol  of  the  soul's 
feeding  upon  Christ  "  and  now  let  us  ask, 
concerning  the  disciple  still  unbaptized, 
whether  it  be  not  proper  for  Hts  soul  also 
to  feed  on  Christ ;  and  if  this  be  proper 
who  can  object  to  the  outward  symbol- 
izing of  his  spiritual  act  ?  Why  cannot 
one  remember  Christ  in  the  breaking  of 
bread  just  as  truly,  as  reasonably  and  as 
profitably  before  baptism  as  after?  But 
if  it  be  proper  for  the  unbaptized  disciple 


The  CJmrch  Supper.  133 

to  remember  Christ  and  also  to  assist  his 
remembrance  by  a  breaking  of  bread,  why 
should  we  not  invite  him  to  unite  with  us 
in  the  church  when  we  are  doing  the 
same  thing? 

If  as  we  were  sitting  down  to  a  week- 
day meal  with  a  convert  not  yet  baptized 
he  should  say, — "  Lo,  this  bread  which  sus- 
tains our  mortal  bodies  is  a  symbol  of 
Christ  the  bread  of  heaven,  and  now  as 
we  eat  this  material  food  let  us  think  of 
Christ  the  heavenly  manna,"  would  it  be 
incumbent  on  us  to  refuse  to  go  on  with 
the  repast  ?  But  if  we  can  unite  with  an 
unbaptized  person  in  remembering  Christ 
in  the  home  meal,  why  may  we  not  wel- 
come him  to  remember  the  Lord  with  us 
at  the  church  table  ? 

If  an  unbaptized  person  said,  "  Let  us 
sit  down  together  and  think  of  Christ," 
we  might  be  willing  so  to  do.  Should 
he  point  to  a  picture  of  the  crucifixion 
saying, — "  Let  us  gaze  at  that  picture  on 
the  wall  that  it  may  help  us  to  think  of 
Him,"  we  might  not  object.     If  he  drew 


1 34  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

from  his  pocket  a  crucifix  saying, — ''  Let 
us  look  on  this  that  it  may  assist  our 
thoughts,"  even  a  rigid  Protestant  might 
still  consent.  And  now  if  he  said, — "  To 
remind  ourselves  of  Christ,  the  bread  of 
heaven,  let  us  eat  a  piece  of  material 
bread,  and  to  remind  us  of  his  shed  blood 
let  us  drink  of  this  red  juice  of  the  grape," 
why  should  we  at  last  refuse?  If  we 
are  willing  to  join  with  an  unbaptized 
person  in  remembering  Christ,  why 
should  we  not  consent  to  join  with  him 
in  any  reasonable  act  that  will  assist  such 
remembrance? 

What  is  the  "  Ordinance  "  of  Christ  ? 
It  is  a  Remembrance  of  him.  The  break- 
ing of  bread  is  simply  a  means  thereto  : 
it  is  the  Remembrance  itself  that  is  the 
end,  the  essential  thing.  But  ecclesiasti- 
cal legalists  have  squarely  reversed  the 
divine  idea.  Says  one  party, — "  We  will 
cheerfully  remember  Christ  with  you,  but 
we  positively  will  not  do  it  in  the  break- 
ing of  bread."  The  other  party  responds, 
— ''  We    care  not   a    fig   for  your  remem- 


TJie  Church  Slipper.  135 

bering  Christ  with  us  so  long  as  you  will 
not  do  it  in  the  breaking  of  bread/' 
Each  party  makes  the  outward  act,  the 
means,  more  important  than  the  spirit- 
ual exercise  which  is  the  end. 

It  is  an  Ordinance  of"  Christ  that  we 
commune  with  him  in  the  breaking  of 
bread.  It  is  another  Ordinance  of  his 
that  we  commune  with  him  in  prayer,  and 
it  is  still  another  that  we  commune  with 
him  in  praise.  Now  we  find  nowhere  in 
Scripture  or  in  common  sense  any  ''terms 
of  communion  "  in  the  breaking  of  bread 
beyond  what  may  be  called  for  in  a  com- 
munion with  Christ  and  our  fellow^  disci- 
ples in  prayer  or  the  service  of  praise. 
The  invitation  to  the  memorial  eating 
may  be  as  wide  as  the  welcome  to  join  us 
in  any  other  Christian  exercise. 

Therefore  as  the  minister  may  say, — 
'*  We  are  about  to  engage  in  prayer  in 
the  name  of  Christ  and  we  urge  all  pres- 
ent to  unite  with  us  therein,"  or, — "  We 
are  now  about  to  sing  a  hymn  of  praise  to 
Christ    and    all    who    will    devoutly    join 


136  CfirisT  in  the  Daily  Meal, 

with  us  are  invited  so  to  do,"  so  let  him 
say^ — "  We  are  now  about  to  engage  in 
a  remembrance  of  Christ  through  the 
breaking  of  bread,  and  all  who  would  find 
a  pleasure  in  so  doing  are  joyfully  wel- 
comed to  join  us  therein."  Whether  the 
unbaptized  disciple  be  a  member  of  the 
Society  of  Friends,  rejecting  all  water 
baptism,  or  an  accepted  candidate  for  bap- 
tism still  awaiting  the  rite,  or  some  pious 
but  misguided  brother  who  has  taken  up 
with  a  pseudo-baptism  in  the  place  of  the 
New  Testament  ceremony,  he  is  as  capa- 
ble of  a  true  *'  remembrance  "  of  Christ  as 
we  are,  and  we  may  properly  ask  him  to 
join  us  in  such  remembrance. 


XV. 

**  In  Conclusion'^ 

^^  D  UT  "  asks  some  one — "  will  all  the 
i— ^     churches    accept    the    foregoing 
doctrine,  which  is  so  different  from  their 
present  ideas?"     Certainly  not. 

If  to  those  who  are  in  the  wroncr  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  there 
were  read  an  essay  showing  them  most 
conclusively  their  error,  would  they  all 
and  at  once  abandon  it?  If  to  those  who 
are  astray  in  the  matter  of  the  act  and 
subjects  of  Baptism  there  were  presented 
a  treatise  making  it  plain  from  Scrip- 
ture and  history  and  reason  how  entirely 
they  are  mistaken,  would  they  instantly 
and  as  one  man  change  their  practice? 
Nay,  established  conceptions  are  not  so 
easily  uprooted.  Macaulay  has  remarked 
that  no  Catholic  nation  becomes  Protes- 
tant and  no  Protestant  country  becomes 


138  Christ  in  the  Daily  Meal. 

Catholic.  So,  even  with  all  the  tracts 
and  volumes  written,  no  Baptist  Church 
becomes  Presbyterian  nor  Presbyterian, 
Baptist  ;  no  Episcopalian  Church  be- 
comes Congregational  and  no  Congrega- 
tional Church,  Episcopalian.  We  may 
think  that  we  ourselves  always  follow 
pure  reason,  but  we  see  plainly  that  our 
fellow  men  are  influenced  very  little  by 
argument  as  compared  with  hereditary 
predisposition,  habitual  training,  and  per- 
sonal prejudice.  Therefore,  though  every 
unbiased  reader  declared  the  argument 
in  the  foregoing  pages  as  conclusive  as  a 
demonstration  in  Euclid,  one  could  not 
expect  it  to  have  any  very  great  effect. 
Nevertheless,  argument  is  not  always  en- 
tirely thrown  away  ;  wherefore,  if  the  rea- 
soning in  the  preceding  pages  be  indeed 
sound,  it  may  give  to  here  and  there  a 
disciple,  and  even  to  many  a  one,  some 
suggestion  which  will  return  to  his  mind 
again  and  again,  and  which  will  serve  to 
make  for  him  his  daily  table  "  a  table  of 
the  Lord." 


BOOKS  OF  BIOGRAPHY. 


Preacher  and    Teacher:     The    Life    of   Thomas 

Rambaut,  D.  D.,  LL.D  By  Rev.  Norman  Fox,  D.D.  A 
graphic  sketch  of  this  widely  known  Baptist  pastor  and  educator, 
his  French- Irish  family,  Youthful  Adventures.  Studies,  Experiences 
as  a  Clerof^mian  in  the  South  West  and  Fast,  and  President  of  the 
William  Jewell  College.  Steel  Portrait.  i6mo.  Vellum  Cloth, 
Gilt  top,  ^i  GO. 


"  Dr.  Rambaut  was  eminen*  <"or  many 
years  amonsr  American  Bapt.sts.  .  .  . 
He  wns  a  man  of  strong-  characteristics 
and  deep  and  lasting  influence."— G7«- 
gregattonaiist. 


"  A  graphic  portraiture  of  the  man 
and  an  inspiring-  view  of  the  worii 
which  such  men  do.  It  is  marked  by- 
excellent  taste  and  discrimination."— 
Ckariestoii  (N.  C.)  Xetus  a?id  Courier 


Two   German   Giants :    Frederick  of  Prussia  and 

Bismarck,   the  Founder  and  the  Builder  of  German  Empire. 

By  Dr.  John  Lord,  author  of  ''Beacon  Lights  of  History" 
Also  a  Character  Sketch  of  Bismarck  by  Bayard  Taylor  ;  the 
Great  Speech  of  Bismarck  before  the  Reichstag  in  1888,  and  Text 
of  the  Austro-German  Treaty  then  made  public  and  treated  of  in 
the  speech.      Tivo  Portraits.     Cr.  Svo,  Extra  Cloth.  $1.00. 

"The  brilliant  genius  of  Dr.  Lo--d, 
with  which  1  have  long  been  familiar, 
shines    as    conspicuously    from    these 


"  If  as  is  alleged,  '  history  is  biography 
with  the  brains  knocked  out,'  this  may 
be  appropriately  called  a  chapter  of 
history  ivitk  ihe  brmns  insert t'd.  for 
the  history  of  Prince  Bismarck  is  really 
the  modern  history  of  Germany  and 
the  kev  to  that  of  modern  Europe." — 
Detroit  Post. 


pages  as  from  the  platform  where  he 
has  been  such  a  power.  His  lectures 
cannot  fail  to  be  read  with  pleasure  and 
profit.''— Rev.  Julius  H.  Seelye,  D.D., 
President  of  A  viherst  Cotlege,  Mass, 


Life  and  Letters  of  John  H.  Raymond.     Organizer 

and  First  President  of  Vassar  College.  Edited  by  his  Eldest 
Daughter.  744  pp.,  Svo.  With  Steel  Portrait.  Extra  Cloth,  bev- 
eled, $1.50. 


"  It  is  the  creation  of  Vassar  College 
out  of  his  own  brain,  the  advance  f.ora 
theory  id  practice,  the  working  out  of  ths 
pathway  for  the  higher  education  of 
women  where  none  existed,  that  wise  con- 
servatism and  intelligent  progress  by 
which  these  results  were  reached,  andths 
entire  consecration  of  his  life  to  these 
ends — which  is  Dr.  Raymond's  chief 
monuraent." — New  York  Timea. 


"  Dr.  Raymond  deserves  all  the  honor 
that  can  be  paid  h!m  for  the  work  he  thus 
accomplished. '' — Boston  Traveller. 

"  A  book,  the  charm  of  which  it  is  not 
easy  to  express.  .  .  .  This  admirably  ju- 
dicious record  of  a  wholly  and  singularly 
beautiful,  strong,  wise,  consecrated  life, 
will  do  not  a  little,  wherever  read,  to  per- 
petuate the  usefulness  of  the  man.'" — Chi- 
cago Advance. 


Sir  Philip  Sidney:  His  Life  and  Times.  A  memo- 
rial of  one  whose  name  is  a  Synonym  for  every  Manly  Virtue.  By 
Mrs.  S.  M.  Henry  Davis.  Illustrated  with  Three  Steel  Plates  : 
Portrait  of  Sidney  ;  View  of  Penshurst  Castle  ;  Fac-Simile  of  Sid- 
ney's Manuscript.  i2mo.  Cloth,  beveled,  stamped  in  ink  and 
gold  with  Sidney's  Coat  of  Arms,  ^1.25. 


"Worthy  of  place  as  an  English  Class- 
ic.''— Pittsburgh  Commercial. 

"  There  is  scarcely  any  satisfactory 
memoir  of  him  accessible  to  the  general 
reader,  and  the  author  of  this  book  has 
done  a  good  service." — FhiV ei  l;,quirer. 

"  Compels  the  readers  attention,  and 


leaves  upon  his  mind  impressions  more 
distinct  and  lasting  than  the  greatest  his- 
torians are  in  the  habit  of  making.  .  .  . 
We  long  to  see  the  story  of  Sidney's  life 
take  its  proper  place  in  the  hearts  of 
American  youth.'"  —  Christian  Union 
(New  YorkJ. 


FORDS,    HOWARD, 
47  JEast  Tenth  St. 


&    HULBERT, 

yew  YorJc. 


THE  AMERICAN  VERSION 

Of  the  New  Testament  is  recognized  as  the  best  translation 
of  the  best  Greek  text  yet  given  to  the  world.  That  of  the  Book 
of  Psalms  brings  out  the  noble  rhythm  aad  beauty  of  the  Hebrew 
poetry,  and  is  recognized  as  the  finest  text  for  Responsive  Readings. 

The  American  Version 

Gives  in  each  case  the  Readings  and  Renderinfrs  preferred  by  the  Amer- 
ican Revisers  incorporated  into  the  text^  insiead  of   being  relegated  to  the 

ppendix  (as  in  the  English  Version  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  and  the 
American  reprints  of  them);  while  the  English  preferences  or  adoptions  are 
given  in  the  Appendix^  eacn  difiference  being  separately  noted,  instead  of  ail 
bemg  condensed  into  "  Classes  of  Passages." 

IHE   New  TEST.AMENT.  TUE  BOOK  OF  PSALMS. 


Edited  by  Rev.  Roswell  D.  Hitch- 
c  >CK,  D.D.,  President  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  New  York  City. 
'•  Our  supreme  duty  is  to  ascertain, 
if  possible,  and  then  to  express,  if  pos- 
sible, exactly  its   meaning,    in   every 
chapter  and  paragraph,  in  every  sen- 
tence, in  every  idiom,  and  in   every 
word.  .  .  .  The  most  faitnful  render- 
ings will  finally  be   pronounced  the 
best." — Front  Dr.  Hitchcock's  Pref- 
ace. 

'•  As  to  the  points  of  difference  be- 
tween the  two  Companies  of  Revisers, 
the  renderings  preferred  by  the  Amer- 
ican Revisers  will,  in  most  cases,  oe 
considered  the  more  exact  and  self- 
consistent  "  —  Chancellor  Howard 
Crosby,  D.D. 

'•  It  represents  the  best,  the  oldest, 
and  the  purest,  Greek  text  of  the  New 
lestanaent  at  present  attainable,  by 
coisent  of  the  most  competent  Chris- 
tian scholars.  .  .  Furthermore,  this 
American  Version  is  the  most  accurate 
English  rendering  in  existence  of  that 
Greek  text. "—A''.  Y.  C/t.  Intelligencer. 
"Dr  H.  has  performed  the  necessary 
labor  with  ihe  conscientiousness,  abil- 
ity, skill  and  taste  wiiich  would  be 
exp-cted  f  om  a  man  of  his  gifts  and 
attainments."— ^Vf:£/  Voy-k  Observer. 
"  Probably  as  nearly  perfect  as  any- 
thing we  shall  get  in  many  long  years 
to  come.  '—  VdTy    York  Ei'^ing-elist. 

"  Great  pains  have  evidently  been 
taken  to  make  it  accurate.  .  .  .  The 
typogranhical  execution  is  admir- 
able."—Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  of  the  Am 
Committee  of  Revision. 

Crown,  8eo.,  Long  Primer, 
Clo.  red  edges. 


Edited  by  Rev.  J.  G.  Lansing,  D.D., 
Prof.Old  Testament  Languages  and 
Exegesis,     Iheological     seminary, 
New  Brunswick.  N.  J. 
"The     American     Revisers    have 
shown  themselves  to  be  in  advance  of 
the   scholarship  of   the  times,  rather 
than  behind   it,  as  will  be  seen  when 
the  other  Shemitic  languages  come  to 
be  more   thoroughly  studied  and  un- 
derstood, an  J  more  faithfully  applied. 
It  remains  lor  us  to  express  our  pro- 
found satisfaction  that  we  now  have 
in  our  possession  the  precious  Book  of 
Psalms  with   these  many  important 
changes  demanded  by  faithfulness  to 
the     H  .ly     Scriptures." — From   Dr. 
Lansing's  Preface. 

"  Prof.  Lansing  has  rendered  a  val- 
uable service  in  thus  placing  before 
the  Americ4n  public  in  an  intelligible 
form  the  work  of  tneir  scholarly  coun- 
trym':;n  in  f^e  Revision  of  that  part  of 
the  Old  Testament  which  lies  nearest 
to  the  popular  heart  in  worship  and 
devotion."— iV.  Y.  Christian  Intelli- 


This  translation,  arranged 
in  poetic  lines,  exhibits  the 
characteristic  parallelism  of 
the  Hebrew  Sacred  Songs, 
and  is  finding  great  favor 
as  a  Psalter  for  Responsive 
Readings  in  churches. 

Cr<»wn,  8vo..  Liong  Primer, 
flexible  cloth,  35  cents. 


NEW  TESTAMEXT  nnd  PSALl'S,  1  Vol.,  cloth,  red  Pd?es,  $1. 

"The  old-fashioned  combination  of  Testament  nd  Psalms,  so  dear  to  many 
a  household  for  devotional  purposes,  will  be  obtainable  in  large,  agreeable 
type  and  at  a  low  ^nz^.'"— Christian  Standard  (rinci;ina'i    O  ^ 

FORDS,   HOWARD,   &  HULBERT, 
4:7  Hast  10th  St.,  New  York. 


Pastor's  Gospel  Manual. —  There  has  been  a  special  call  for 
this  book  in  durable  leither  binding,  for  use  as  a  Pastor  s  Pocket 
Handbook.  It  cart  now  be  had  in  Full  Seal,  rounded  corners,  gilt 
edges.     See  below. 

The  Interwoven  Gospels 

AND  Gospel  Harmony. 

By  Rev.  WILLIAM  PITTENGER. 


The  four  Histories  of  Jesus  Christ  blended  into  a  complete 
and  continuous  narrative  in  the  words  of  the  Gospels ;  inter- 
leaved with  pages  showing  the  Method  of  the  Harmony. 
According  to  the  American  Revised  Version. 

Full  Indexes,  References,  etc.      New  edition.       Tenth  Thousand. 


12 mo.    Five  3Iaps,    Cloth,  red  edges,  $1,00  ; 
Seal,  gilt  edges,  $2.00. 

"  A    book   certainly 


Full 


well  fitted  to 
answer  its  purpose  ' — N.  V.  Observer 
(Prcbb^  terian). 

■  ^  omparalively  few  students  of 
the  B  ble  understand  the  value  of  the 
monotessaron— a  weaving  of  the 
Gospel  story  into  a  single  narrative. 
VVe  have  seen  none  that  we  prefer  to 
that  compiled  by  the  Rev.  VVm. 
Pittenger.  ....  The  Maos,  indi- 
caiing'in  colors  the' separate  journeys 
of  Christ,  form  a  valuable  teature." 
—  The  Golden  Rule,  Boston  (Chris- 
tian Endeavor  Organ). 

"  A  peculiarly  valuable  work, 
readilv  appreciated  by  Bible  stu- 
dents '" — Ep-Morth  Herald,  Chicago 
(Methodist). 

"  Bjtter  adapted  than  the  earlier 
issues  to  aid  Biblical  students  to  tJrasp 
connectedly  the  facts  in  the  Gospel 
story.'  — The  Co7igregationalist,  Bos- 
ton. 

"  Not  a  verbal  harmony,  usinsr 
every  word  of  each  Gospel,  but  as  if 
we  were  talkinar  with  the  Evangelists. 
One  relates  an  incidf-nt  and  calls  on 
the  others  to  ar^d  details  which  they 
recall,  and  then  another  takes  up  the 
storv  and  is  supplemented  in  a  simi'ar 
manner.  It  makes  a  delightful  book 
for  devotional  use."— A''.  W.  Congre- 
.T^-.f-nnih'si.   Minneanolis 


"  The  widest  and  most  practical 
use  of  it  appears  to  be  for  general 
reading,  where  it  is  desired  to  present 
to  the  mind  any  event  in  the  life  of 
Christ  in  its  completeness.''— T.^^ 
Standard,  Chicago  (Baptist;. 

•'  A  book  which  no  student  of  the 
Gospels  and  literature  should  lail  to 
get  lor  his  library.  .  .  .  T  he  stu- 
dent gets  three  important  things:  the 
full  story  comoined  from  all  the 
Gospels,  the  peculiarities  of  each 
Gospel,  and  the  precise  points  of 
agreement  or  divergence  between 
them." — New  Engia^id  Magazine. 

"  That  this  has  found  favor  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  this  edition 
is  the  seventh  thousand.  ...  It 
is  also  a  hopeful  sign  that  the  demand 
for  this  cIjss  of  books  is  incieasing, 
and  that  the  labors  of  the  Revisers  of 
i88i  are  gradually  receiving  a  heartier 
appreciation  among  intelligent  stu- 
dents."—.V.  ]'.  Christian  Intelli- 
gencer (Reformed  Church). 

"Admirably  adapted  to  use  in 
familv  and  private  devotions,  and  in 
prayer  meetings,  and  would  be  very 
valuable  for  its  suggestiveness  to  all 
who  study  the  life  of  Christ  by  the 
Inductive  Method."  —  Springfiela 
(Mass.)   Union. 

The  book  is  valuable  not  only  for  study,  but  also  especially  for 
devotional  reading — by  one's  self,  at  family  prayers,  before  schools., 
and  in  the  hands  of  a  Pastor  at  the  Church  prayer  and  conference 
meeting. 

FORDS,   HOWARD,   &  HULBERT, 
47  East  10th  St.,  New  York. 


Primitive  Faith — Expanding  Philosophy. 


Zhc  1Rew  Puritanism^ 

A   SERIES    OF    PAPERS 

Presented  during  the   Semi- Centennial   Celebration 
of  Plymouth   Church,  Brooklyn,   N,  IT., 

1847-1897. 


The  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the  Founding  of  Plymouth 
Church  was  a  fit  occasion  for  reviewing  the  Progress  of  Religious 
Thought  during  the  past  half  century,  and  taking  a  forelock  at 
its  near  future.  The  eminent  thinkers  gathered  for  that  purpose 
have  set  forth  this  Retrospect  and  Prospect  in  most  suggestive 
fashion ;  their  addresses  form  a  book  of  vital  interest  and  sterling 
worth. 

Tlie  New  Puritanism:    Lyman  Abbott. 

Puritan  Principles  in  ITIoclern  Life:    Amory  H.  Bradford,  D.D. 

Beeclier's   Influence    on    Religious    Tliouglit    in    England: 

Charles  A.  Berrv,  D.D. 
The  'I'lieologlcal  Problem  for  To-day  :  George  A.  Gordon,  D.D. 
Social  Problems  of  the  Future:    Washington  Gladden,  D.D. 
The  Church  of  the  Future:    President  Willl\j»i  J.  Tucker. 
Review  and  Outlook  :    Charles  A.  Berry,  D.D. 
The  Descent  from  the  ITIount:    Lyman  Abbott,  D.D. 
Introduction,  by  Rossiter  W.  Raymond,  Ph.D. 

Extra  clothf  gilt  top,  $1.25. 


"  A  handsome  volume,  which  will 
be  read  by  thoughtful  people  of  all 
denominations  who  are  concerned 
to  form  a  clear  conception  of  the 
changes  that  fifty  years  have 
brought  in  the  working  creeds  of 
the  churches,  and  the  gradual,  but 
inarvelous  and  deep-reaching,  tran- 
sition from  the  old  Puritanism  to  the 
new.  .  .  A  noble  body  of  thought 
on  some  of  the  most  pressing  ques- 
tions of  the  day.  .  .  Eloquent  and 
significant  utterance  to  the  new 
thinking  that  is  irresistibly  sweep- 
ing modern  theology  and  modern 
society  into  regions  as  yet  unex- 
plored, but  into  which  God  in  His 
providence  is  indubitably  leading 
his  children."— iV^zy  York'^ Christian 
Advocate. 

"  It  was  much  more  than  a  local 


celebration.  Henry  Ward  Beecher 
did  not  belong  to  one  church  or  one 
city.  His  influence  did  not  stop  at 
the  sea,  but  spread  far  and  wide 
over  the  whole  civilized  world.  .  . 
The  currents  of  thought  which  he 
started  are  flowing  on  with  ever  in- 
creasing volume  and  power." — The 
Church  Econojnisty  N.  Y. 

"Stirring,  vital  themes,  treated  by 
representative  men.  .  .  A  noble 
contribution  to  the  spiritual  thought 
of  the  6.Q.Y y  —Indianapolis  News. 

"  Exceptionally  interesting  and 
valuable."—  7"//^  Congres'ationalist. 

"  Clearness,  force,  and  vital  in- 
terest, both  in  theme  and  treatment." 
—Phila.  Public  Ledger. 

"  Specially  noteworthy."  —  The 
Advd?tce. 


FORDS,   HOWARD,   &  HULBERT, 
47  East  10th  St.,  Netv  York. 


IfiSoofts  b^  IfDenr^  Marb  :Beecber» 

Bible  Studies. 
Sunday  Evening  Discourses  on  Inspiration,  and  Bible  Readings, 
with  Characteristic  Comment.     A  new  \olume   from    unpublished 
notes  of  T.  J.  Ellinwood.     Edited  by  John  R.  Howard  [1892]. 
Garnet  cloth,  $1.50. 

A  Book  of  Prayer. 

Introduction  on  the  universality  and  varied  phases  of  Prayer. 
Invocation,  Prayers  before  Sermon,  and  Closing  Prayers  arranged 
by  topics  from  unpublished  stenographic  notes  of  T.  J.  Ellinwood 
[1892].     Cloth,  75  cts.;  cloth,  gilt,  gi. 

Comforting  Thoughts. 

For  those  in  Bereavement,  Illness  and  Adversity.     Compiled  by 
■   Irene  Ovington.     With  Vignettes.     Cloth,  limp,  75  cts.;    cloth, 

^'  '  *^'  Sermons. 

Four  volumes,  1873-4.  EUmwood's  Reports.  Garnet  cloth,  per 
volume,  $1.50.  (Ste  also  Ez'olution  and  Religion,  A  Summer  in 
England,  and  Patriotic  Addri'sses  ) 

Plymouth  Pulpit,  sin;4le  sermons,  5  cts.;  assorted  lots,  50 
cts   per  dozen.     No  complete  volumes.     Send  for  list. 

The  Original  Plymouth  Pulpit,  i8t^8  to  1873.  Ten 
volumes  (originally  S-'5)  m  tive  volumes.  Octavo,  garnet  cloth, 
$12.50,  net. 

Evolution  and  Eeligion. 

Part  I. — Theoretical  and  iioctrinal  ;  paper,  50  cts.  Part  II. — 
Practical  and  Vital;  paper,  ;^i.  The  two  Parts  in  one  volume, 
garnet  cloth,  $1.50. 

Patriotic  Addresses  and  Sermons. 

On  Slavery,  Civil  War  (including  the  Speeches  in  England,  1S63), 

and  Civil   Liberty  in  the   United  States — from  the  reply  to  Henry 

i  Clay  to  the  Eulogies  on  Lincoln  and  Grant.     With  a  Review  of  his 

I  Life,    Personality  and    Public    Influence,   by   John    R.    Howard. 

Svo,  858  pp.     Cloth,  $2;   cloth,  gilt,  g2. 50  ;   halfmor.,$4. 

I  A  Summer  in  England. 

I  Addresses,  Lectures  and  Sermons  delivered  there  in  1886.     With 

account  of  the  trip  by  Maj.  Jas.  B.  Pond.  Photo-artotype  portrait; 
MSS.  notes,  etc.     Cloth,  gilt  top,  $2. 

!  Yale  Lectures  on  Preaching. 

I. — Personal   Elements;    11. — Social  and   Religious   Machinery; 
III. — Christian    Doctrines  and  their  Use.     Thirt^'-three   Lectures. 
'  960  pages.     Three  volumes  in  one.     Vellum  cloth,  J2. 

The  Life  of  Jesus  the  Christ. 

Completed  R'.dition,  2  vols.,  Svo.     Cloth,  ;^5.5o;  half  mor.,  59-50- 
Either  vol.,  singly — cloth,  J3  ;  half  mor.,  ^5. 
I  Lectures  to  Young  Men. 

I  On  Various  Important  Subjects.     Cloth,  $1.50. 

Royal  Truths. 
Reported  from  his  Spoken  Words.     Fourth  American  from  Sixth 
English  Edition.     Cloth,  $1  25. 

Beecher  as  a  Humorist. 

Selections  of  Wit  and  Humor  from  his  Works.  Compiled  by 
Eleanor  Kirk-     Vellum  cloth,  $1. 

Norwood. 
A  Tale  of  Village  Life  in  New  England.     Mr.  Beecher's 
Only  Novel.     Cloth,  Popular  Edition,  $1.25;  paper,  50  cts. 

Faith. 
Last  Morning'  Sermon  preached  by  Mr.  Beecher,  Sunday, 
Feb.  27,  1887.    Portrait.    Embossed  paper,  20c  ;  leather,  45c. 


FORDS,    HOWARD,   &   HULBERT, 

4:7  East  Tenth  St.,  New  York. 


Books  of  Literary  Interest. 


The  Human  Mystery  in  Hamlet :    An  Attempt   to 

Say  an  Unsaid  Word:  with  Suggestive  Parallelisms  from  the 
Elder  Poets.  By  Martin  W,  Cooke,  A.  M.  President  of  the 
New  York  State  Bar  Association.  i6mo.  Vellum  cloth,  gilt  top, 
uncut  edges,  $i.oo. 


"Whether  or  not  the  author  of 
'Hamlet'  had  a  conscious  purpose  to 
give  a  concrete  embodiment  of  the  uni- 
versal human  truth  which  you  have  so 
ably  expounded  this  is  unquestionably 
to  be  found  in  the  play.  Genius  often 
builds  better  than  it  knows,  and  I  be- 
lieve Shakespeare  often  did.  It  is  this 
frasp  that  apprehends  the  universally 
uman  which  distinguishes  a  classic 
from  an  ephemeral  composition.     It  is 


the  ability  to  discern  a  rich  meaning 
where  common  men  see  only  a  common- 
place one  that  marks  ihe  true'  critic."— 
From  D.AViD  J.  Hill,  President  Uni- 
versity of  Kachester, 

'•  I  have  read  [it]  with  interest  and 
admiration,  interest  in  a  theme  whose 
infini;e  variety  custom  cannot  stale,  and 
admiration  for  the  earnestness  and  skill 
wherewith  Mr.  Cooke  pleads  for  his 
theory.''— Horace  Howard  Furness^ 


Henry  Ward  Beecher.    Record  of  a  Memorial  Service 

held  in  Plymouth  Church,  Brooklyn,  on  Sunda)',  March  8,  iSgi,  by 

bv  Thomas 


the  Plymouth  Sunday  School. 
G.  SHEARM.A.N,  Superintendent. 

The  peculiar  interest  of  this  little 
brochure  is  that  Mr.  Shearman  was  not 
only  for  thirty  years  a  member  of  Ply- 
mouth Church,  but  he  was  an  intimate 
friend  and  valued  counseller  of  Mr. 
Beecher,  and  in  this  brief  address  has 


Including  an  address 
Paper,  25  cents. 

told  many  things  characteristic  of  the 
great  preacher  which  others  had  not 
noted.  It  is  terse,  suggestive,  admir- 
ably put,  and  should  be  read  by  all 
who  seek  knowledge  of  that  wonderful 
man. 


Bryant    and    His    Friends :     Reminiscences    of    the 

Knickerbocker  Writers.  By  Gen.  James  Grant  Wilson,  Author 
of  ''Poets  and  Poetry  of  Scot/and,"  "Life  and  Letters  of  Fitz- 
Greefie  Halleck"  Editor  Appleton's  "  Cvciopedia  of  Biography,''  etc. 
Illustrated  with  Steel  Portraits,  MSS.  Fac- Similes,  etc.  Cloth 
beveled   gilt  top,  $2.00. 

Remainder  of  LARGE  PAPER  EDITION,  limited  to  195 
copies.  Cased  in  Cloth  gilt  top,  uncut  edges,  $15  00.  Furnished 
in  Sheets,  for  those  who  wish  to  add  illustrative  plates,  at  the  same 
price  as  cloth-cased.  Bound  in  Full  Turkey  Morocco,  gilt,  I25.00. 
[All  styles  in  Boxes.] 

Biographical  and  Anecdotal  Sketches  of  Bryant,  Paulding,  Irving, 
Dana,  Cooper.  Halleck  and  Drake  ;  together  with  Poe,  Willis. 
and  Bayard  Taylor.  Also  concluding  chapter  on  "The  Knicker- 
bocker Literature,"  shorter  notices  of  others,  who.  making  their  fame 
in  the  first  half  of  the  century,  were  the  pioneers  of  American  literature. 

"  I  have  read  it  with  interest  and 
pleasure,  following  your  words  often 
with  my  memory,  and,  under  your 
guidance,  recalling  delightful  hours 
and  famous  men." — George  William 


"  A  standard  volume  of  literary  his- 
tory. .  .  .  Especially  valuable  in  the 
vigor  and  graphic  pictorial  power  with 
which  those  days  and  scenes,  gone  from 
all  save  memory,  are  brought  to  life  and 
light  SigdXvi.''''— Boston  Ev'g  Traveller. 


Curtis. 


FORDS,   HOWARD,  &  HULBERT, 
47  JEast  lOth  St.,  New  York, 


Date  Due 

.^^ir« 

\ 

^5^sr?!ffP^^^* 

^l^^m:.^^"^ 

* 

=;l;lli!^;lf' 


1    1012  01030  7694 


aiiiiiiii 


illiiiilfi 


